Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PORT ASKAIG PIER ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. William Ross presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Port Askaig Pier; and the same was read the first time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 233.]

ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF EDINBURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. William Ross presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 234.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Municipalisation (Expenditure)

Mr. Macfarlane: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of expenditure on municipalisation, including the cost of improvements, in 1974–75; and what is the expected level of expenditure in 1975–76.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Anthony Crosland): The total cost of municipalisation by local authorities in 1974–75 was about £200 million, including expenditure on initial repairs. The public expenditure provision for 1975–76 is approximately the same.

Mr. Macfarlane: Will the Secretary of State tell the House exactly why the Government are still continuing to waste taxpayers' money in this direction when it does little to provide additional home accommodation? Does he accept that it seriously affects any future house building programme? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Greater London Council is wasting ratepayers' money and is doing nothing to add to the new houses being built in Greater London?

Mr. Crosland: The next Question on the Order Paper concerns the amount of additional new housing that we are providing. As to why we go on spending substantial sums in this direction, I can give three brief answers. We do so, first because it brings empty properties into use. Secondly, it enables the most substandard property to be improved. Thirdly, it retains badly needed property in the rented sector.

House Building

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the house building programme.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for house building in the public and private sectors.

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the


latest figures available for housing starts in both the public and private sectors.

Mr. Crosland: This is also the answer to part of the Question asked by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane). Comparing the three months June-August of this year with the same three months last year, on a seasonally adjusted basis, public sector starts were up by 14 per cent., private sector starts by 61 per cent., and total starts by 32 per cent. Public sector completions were up by 24 per cent., private sector completions by 28 per cent., and total completions by 26 per cent. We have thus made an encouraging recovery from the disastrous situation which we inherited when we took office. But I still want to see the figures substantially higher.

Mr. Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend now support the call made by the TUC last month for a massive housing programme, which would help to kill two birds with one stone—unemployment and homelessness? Secondly, will he resist any further cuts in housing expenditure and, indeed, the drastic cuts in other public expenditure with which we are now threatened?

Mr. Crosland: As to the latter part of the question, I think my hon. Friend is well aware of my views on public expenditure. I favour the highest possible level of public expenditure. It is a view that I have held for very many years. As regards the first part of the question, there is nothing that I would like better than more money for housing. But this is not a question of housing policy; this is a question of general reflationary policy. The Government's policy, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Labour Party conference, was endorsed by an enormous majority.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the figures which he has mentioned would have been even better were it not for the fact that many local authorities—they are mainly Tory-controlled but not always; in Liverpool they are Liberal-controlled—are claiming that the Government cuts are preventing them from building the houses that they would like to build? This is complete and utter nonsense. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will explain the matter more fully, but will he take it from me that

there are many people in the Labour Party—not necessarily inside the Tribune Group—who feel that every possible resistance must be offered to any cutback in public expenditure, with particular reference to housing. We need to ensure that when we have to go to the country again at least we can say that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not yet at that stage of speech-making.

Mr. Crosland: Tribune Group or no Tribune Group, I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. I have said many times that I think the sensible course for a Government, given the present economic climate, is to take out a limited number of priorities. In my view housing should be one of those priorities. That should be done so that when we go to the country again we can say that even though we could not do everything we would have liked to do, at least in some limited areas, such as housing, we made a success.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is it not the fact that in the quarter May-July this year there was a 12 per cent. fall in the orders for new council houses? Does this not show what many people suspect, namely, that the council housing increase has its peak because many councils are finding it too expensive to build houses?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I have given the figures for the past three months both for starts and completions. If I were to have given the figures for the first eight months of this year they would have shown an equally favourable picture. Of course, from month to month, starts, completions and orders invariably fluctuate. That is why one can never take a single month but must always take—as I have this afternoon—a three-months' period.

Mr. Gould: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although industrialised building techniques have always been viewed with suspicion by the British construction industry they have made a notable contribution in other countries, such as Norway, which has been rather more successful than we have in dealing with housing problems? What consideration is being given to the direct encouragement of industrialised building, in view of the fact that in this area of the construction industry there is a growing level of unemployment?

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend has been good enough to write to me on this subject and, as he knows, I have said that I should be very pleased to talk to him about it. Incidentally, different views are held amongst experts about the precise rôle that industrialised buildings should have in the house-building programme. However, in our circular "Housing Needs and Action" we stress the part which industrialised building could play and, even more strongly, the part which the standardisation of components could play, because that may prove to be the most fruitful and productive line of advance.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that in absolute terms the number of homes he is producing at present is an absolute disaster in human terms? Is he aware that in respect of improvement grants, which are equally a part of the house-building programme, the figure of 37,700 for the latest quarter is about 10,000 down on the previous comparable quarter? What action is he taking to ensure that the improvement grant programme is moving ahead?

Mr. Crosland: If the hon. Gentleman considers that the present house-building figures are an absolute disaster, being about one-third above what they were under the Conservatives, I should be interested to know what word he would apply to the house-building record of his own party when it was in power.

Mr. Joseph Dean: I compliment my right hon. Friend on the increase in the figures that he has announced today. However, what action does he propose to take to stop the eroding of the benefits of these increased figures in cases where council houses are being sold by Conservative-controlled authorities in stress areas at a far higher rate than that at which the waiting lists are growing, thus exacerbating what is already a very serious problem in stress areas?

Mr. Crosland: I am aware of the problem and I have it closely under review. To put the picture into perspective, the sale of council houses at present compared with what it was five years ago is a mere trickle.

Mr. Raison: Is the Secretary of State aware that in his answer to my hon.

Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) he was clearly trying to duck the issue, no doubt as part of his campaign to please the Tribune Group? Why else did the right hon. Gentleman answer a question about public expenditure in terms which clearly carried no conviction? Will he acknowledge that the prospects for council housing are extremely uncertain, because of the high cost of interest rates to which my hon. Friend referred? Is he aware that in the private sector the future is much less sure and confident than he has implied? The fact is that all this depends on a worsening economic situation.

Mr. Crosland: As to my desire to please the Tribune Group, I am sure that its ex-chairman will bear me out when I say that of the present members of the Front Bench I am the main target of hostile criticism by the Tribune Group.
On the point raised by the hon. Member, I point out that there has been an encouraging and important improvement. It is deeply depressing and cynical to find no acknowledgment of that fact coming from the Opposition.

Local Authorities (Direct Labour Departments)

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will recommend local authorities to increase the proportion of competitive tenders for major works in direct labour departments, in the light of the report from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountancy.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The efficiency of direct labour departments should be tested in competition with private contractors. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction announced yesterday that we are establishing a departmental working group on the organisation and operation of local authority direct labour departments. It will consider the report of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Minister accept that it is the ratepayers or taxpayers who pay if the use of direct labour departments results in increased costs? Does he not, therefore, agree that there


is no need to delay the implementation of the proposals in the report by appointing an inter-departmental working party?

Mr. Armstrong: My Department has always ensured that there has been competition. Direct labour departments have operated in the competitive sector and, indeed, saved ratepayers a great deal of money.

Mr. Loyden: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Liverpool, at present, there is a vast amount of overspending on a number of sites which have been in the control of private enterprises and not of direct works departments? Is he also aware that the direct works department in Liverpool has accomplished much for the building programme of Liverpool, to the satisfaction of the authorities?

Mr. Armstrong: Yes, I accept what my hon. Friend said. We are anxious to see the maximum possible expansion of efficient direct labour departments.

Mr. Speed: Will the Minister say which of the main recommendations in the report he does not wholeheartedly endorse?

Mr. Armstrong: As the working group was set up only yesterday, the hon. Gentleman is expecting a lot when he asks me to comment.

Sir W. Elliott: rose—

Mr. Speed: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has not replied to my question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Sir W. Elliott: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the present high level of spare capacity in the building industry in the north-east of England. Therefore, will he use his maximum persuasion on local authorities in that region to put out major contracts for competitive tender?

Mr. Armstrong: I am aware of the situation. I visited both Newcastle and Sunderland during the recess. We are doing what we can to encourage an expansion of work, and it is being done in accordance with the guidelines, which insist on direct labour organisations competing with the private sector.

Construction Industry (Output)

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now give a specific figure for the estimated percentage decline in new construction output in (a) 1975 com pared with 1974, and (b) 1976 compared with 1975.

Mr. Armstrong: Specific percentage estimates of construction output are not published by the Government. However, I expect the significant decline forecast for 1975 compared with 1974 to be followed by some recovery in 1976.

Mr. Latham: In view of the disastrous decline in both improvement work and private industrial construction, does the Minister accept that the industry is now in its worst recession since the 1930s? If so, why does he go on spending money on municipalisation and land nationalisation which could be more productively employed?

Mr. Armstrong: The allocation of resources between the varying needs in the housing area is a matter for discussion. We have made decisions—which I certainly should defend in the House—concerning the priorities between municipalisation, new building, and so on. In view of our disastrous inheritance in the housing field—I am certainly not complacent, I recognise what has to be done—substantial improvements have taken place during the past 18 months.

Mr. Watkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware of recent reports of major brick shortages? Is it not time seriously to consider some form of stabilisation programme to ensure a steady supply of building materials to the construction industry?

Mr. Armstrong: I have had discussions with the brick industry. We are well aware of the difficulties, and any Government help that can be given will be given.

Housing Waiting Lists

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set up a central register of the number of people on the housing waiting lists of each local authority in England and Wales.

Mr. Armstrong: No, Sir.

Mr. Ross: Does the Minister agree that such a central register would be helpful in formulating the Government's housing policy by illustrating particular areas of considerable stress at this time of high unemployment, when mobility of labour is essential?

Mr. Armstrong: The evidence is that waiting lists are not an accurate indicator of real housing needs. The practices of different authorities vary greatly. This matter has been given serious consideration. If we believed that a central list of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is proposing would make a real contribution, we should certainly undertake it. We have considered the matter carefully and, quite frankly, it is not an accurate indicator.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that conscientious local authorities concentrate very much on their waiting lists? What they cannot understand are the policies of the Liberal and Conservative Parties, which would deny them the land, not allow them to have any money, do away with their direct labour forces, and then complain that they are not building houses.

Mr. Armstrong: I agree with my hon. Friend. The great contribution that we can make is the contribution that we are making, to devote extra resources to housing so that people can be well housed.

Mr. Jessel: Will the hon. Gentleman go further than his original reply and say that council house waiting lists are practically useless as a measure of housing need, because large numbers of people not in need of rehousing are on the lists and at the same time substantial numbers of people in need of rehousing do not qualify to get on the lists?

Mr. Armstrong: I would not go as far as that. I have great confidence in local authorities, but practices vary throughout the country. Therefore, I see no great merit in the hon. Gentleman's proposition.

Motorway Building Programme

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will commission an independent assessment of

the current motorway building programme.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): No, Sir. Every motorway scheme receives an exhaustive assessment before it is built.

Mr. Hurd: Does the Minister agree that there has been serious criticism of the assumptions of fact on which these schemes are based, in particular on the assumptions of industrial growth, population growth and fuel costs contained in the laboratory report produced by his Department last year? At this time of great stringency would it not be sensible for someone with a fresh eye and unbiased approach to take a new look at this expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds each year?

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the Department is continually under pressure from hon. Members and other bodies. We are continually reassessing and re-examining the road programme. At present we are assessing the effect on the levels of traffic of the new fuel prices, the different rates of economic growth which are now forecast, and the latest population forecasts. The present indications are that the new forecasts will not differ significantly from the existing ones.

Mr. Whitehead: When are we to have a definitive view from the Department on the consultative document on heavy lorry routes, as in the Midlands, at least—and probably in many other areas—we are having a duplication between proposed heavy lorry routes and proposed motorways? We do not mind a duplication of paper, but we do mind a duplication of concrete.

Mr. Carmichael: I do not like the duplication of paper, either. My hon. Friend should realise that the full programme of lorry routes—this is perhaps a reflection of the pressure to which we are subject—is unlikely to be completed as was originally envisaged when the Private Member's Bill went through in 1972.

Mr. Fox: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us cannot accept what he said? His Department's figures, issued recently, show a decline in traffic in 1974 compared with 1973, which is the first time that has happened in nearly 20


years. In view of that fact, will he assure us that he will look at the projected traffic figures on which new roads are based?

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman, of all people, should know that we look at projected traffic figures. Some time ago it was intimated to my right hon. Friend that the standard of roads would be adjusted because of this trend. In many cases we are now building dual two-lane instead of dual three-lane roads. Nevertheless, the figures seem to bear out firmly that the traffic on the roads is related more to economic growth than things like the cost of fuel.

Mr. Jay: Will my hon. Friend consider making a statement on the legal powers of the so-called road construction units, as there is a feeling in many areas that these are in danger of becoming local dictators, with no clear responsibility to anybody?

Mr. Carmichael: If my right hon. Friend has any specific information that he can give me on this matter I shall be only too pleased to examine it and put it to my right hon. Friend for further consideration on the lines which have been stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).

Substandard Housing

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the total number of people lacking adequate housing accommodation.

Mr. Crosland: The best information available, derived from the 1971 national house condition survey, is that there were then 2·9 million out of 17·1 million dwellings in England and Wales lacking one or more basic amenities. Further more detailed information will come forward as a result of the current review of housing finance and the 1976 house condition survey.

Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if this problem is to be tackled with urgency in the present economic situation, greater emphasis and resources must be placed on the rehabilitation of derelict property? Does he further agree that amongst the homeless the development of squatting, which we may regret, is none the less related to the amount of empty, unrehabilitated and,

in some cases, sound property in the hands of local authorities, Government Departments and nationalised industries?

Mr. Crosland: I think that the better use of the existing housing stock—after all, whatever the level of new house building, it can add only a small amount each year to the total housing stock—should have a higher priority than it has been given by successive Governments. As far as I am concerned, this is easily now the top priority for housing policy.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: We all want to build more houses, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the concern in some rural areas about the density of buildings in the proposals which are being put forward? Will he examine again the yardstick which the Department requires of local authorities in this matter?

Mr. Crosland: I shall certainly examine the yardstick, although it is now true that, generally, it is not a constraint on local authority house building. On the first point, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will write to me, I shall certainly send him an answer.

Local Government Finance

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any indication of the date when the report of the Layfield Committee of Inquiry into local government finance will be presented to him.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): No, but I understand that the committee is working to the original target date of the end of this year.

Dr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the general public is looking to the Layfield Committee to advocate a thorough radical reform of local government finance and that if the Committee merely recommends complicated tinkering with the present system it will be up to the Government to put forward proposals at an early date for an entirely new system?

Mr. Oakes: I cannot anticipate the recommendations of the committee, but it would be foolish to set up a completely independent body to look at the rating system and then tell it how to do it.

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if cash limits were discussed at the last meeting of the consultative council on Local Government Finance.

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir, but I shall have such discussions before any cash limits come into operation.

Mr. Durant: I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has not had this discussion. Does he agree that the only real way to deal with the whole question of local government expenditure is to put a moratorium on capital expenditure. Some authorities are still going ahead with expensive capital schemes, and these should be stopped.

Mr. Crosland: The Government's views about the future of local government expenditure have been made repeatedly and exceedingly clearly. The question of cash limits, as normally discussed, would tend to cover current rather than capital expenditure, but I hope that it will be only a comparatively short time before I am in a position to make a very detailed statement about our view of cash limits.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the discrimination which exists in local government finance against the Greater London area—discrimination which is causing great difficulties? Since there has been a promise that an attempt will be made to remove this unfair and unjust discrimination, may we be told when that is likely to happen?

Mr. Crosland: I cannot give details until we come to the actual rate support grant settlement, but I can repeat what I have said many times in public—that, on the whole, London had rather a rough deal in last year's settlement.

Mr. Raison: In his discussions with the consultative council has the right hon. Gentleman considered what he will do about local authorities which defy Government policy on expenditure, for example, the South Yorkshire Council, which is apparently to defy his policy on bus fares?

Mr. Crosland: We shall have to wait and see what the South Yorkshire total comes to. I have merely seen a report

in the Press about one segment of that total expenditure. However, at the end of the day the Government is not in a position to impose legal sanctions on local authorities. Unless the hon. Member is suggesting that we should move over to the French type of prefectorial system, the Government must depend—and I depend willingly—on the sense of statesmanship and discretion in the local authority.

Seat Belts

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of people liable to be killed or severely disabled each year if the wearing of seat belts in cars is not made compulsory.

Mr. Carmichael: I estimate that the belts worn by drivers and front-seat passengers in cars and light vans in 1974 prevented about 400 deaths and nearly 4,600 serious injuries. If all fitted belts had been worn, another 14,000 serious or fatal casualties would have been avoided.

Mr. Ashley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the death and disablement of so many thousands of people is far too high a price to pay for the dubious luxury of allowing people to travel in cars without safety belts and that although the compulsory wearing of safety belts will not be a popular measure it is necessary? Is it not time that the Government stopped dodging this issue and took action to make the wearing of safety belts compulsory?

Mr. Carmichael: My hon. Friend will know that a Bill was introduced earlier in the Session but that because of the pressure of business we have not been able to complete it. We hope that it will be reintroduced in the next Session. We are anxious that there should be a free vote. Therefore, we want a full debate before that vote is taken.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: If the Government really believe what they are saying, why do they not reintroduce or find time for the Bill which they say will save lives, instead of wasting the time of the House to save the faces of Labour councillors all over the country who broke the law as laid down in the Housing Finance Act?

Mr. Carmichael: There was a general desire in the House that the Bill should be given proper time for debate but, unfortunately, on the night that it came up for consideration, because of the state of business we could debate it for only a short period. The Government intend to introduce the Bill in the coming Session, provide the House with a full opportunity to debate it, and then have a free vote.

Mr. Hannam: In view of the alarming increase in the number of coach accidents recently, will the hon. Gentleman also consider the provision of seat belts in motor coaches?

Mr. Carmichael: This matter is being examined. The whole question of coach safety and better safety in coaches is being considered. There has been a spate of accidents and, naturally, they are spectacular and extremely regrettable, but it appears that the lap belt that might be fitted would not be an economically viable proposition.

M16

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress with the planning of the M16.

Mr. Carmichael: The order to establish the line of the A13-A12 section of M16 is to be made shortly, and a letter announcing this will be sent to objectors within the next few days. A public inquiry into the proposals for the A10-M11 and M11-A12 sections was held between December 1974 and July 1975, and the inspector's report is awaited.

Mr. Tebbit: Is the Minister aware that the Greater London Council is considering the designation of a heavy lorry route through suburban Chingford, through residential and shopping areas, and that the reason for this is the lack of the M16? Does he agree that there is no need to worry about traffic forecasts in respect of this motorway? It is an historical fact that for many years the lives of thousands of people have been made miserable by heavy lorries using unsuitable roads.

Mr. Carmichael: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I have on several occasions looked at the road that he mentioned. I think he will realise that the Department and all the Ministers who

have been dealing with this matter are very much aware of the urgent necessity for this road but, as I said in my original reply, the public inquiry took a long time—exceptionally long—and we cannot expect the inspector's report this side of Christmas.

Mr. McCrindle: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is still the intention to proceed with that part of the M16 from the A13 to the A12 during the financial year beginning next April? The present congestion on the A128 trunk road is causing considering concern to my constituents.

Mr. Carmichael: I should not like to give a definite date for the start of this work, but it is interesting to note that those who live in areas of heavy road traffic know that they need such a road, and those who consider such roads academically decide that they do not need them. In this case we shall be pressing ahead as fast as we can but I should not like to commit myself to a date now.

Unoccupied Council Houses

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of unoccupied council houses at the latest available date.

Mr. Armstrong: The Department's last survey showed that at 31st December 1973 the percentage of council dwellings in England and Wales which were vacant and available for letting remained—as in previous years—under 1 per cent.

Mr. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that whether it is 1 per cent. or not, it means that there are thousands of empty council houses? Does he agree that the Department's time would be better spent urging local authorities to fill these empty council houses, rather than continue the massive programme of municipalisation?

Mr. Armstrong: It is true that even if the figure is below 1 per cent. it still represents a large number of houses. We do not want to see any left empty for longer than is necessary. Local authorities all over the country are discussing the matter with us and are doing all that they can to see that houses are occupied as quickly as possible.

Mr. Loyden: When my hon. Friend is considering this matter will he also consider the problem of the number of properties owned by private enterprise that are lying empty and ensure that local authorities take the necessary power to acquire these properties in order to deal with the urgent housing shortage in many areas?

Mr. Armstrong: Yes, Sir. Any house that is empty causes us concern, and this matter is under consideration.

Mr. Steen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why some council houses are unoccupied is that the environment is so seriously blighted that there are no community facilities—especially on new housing estates—and people do not want to live there? Will he ensure that in future when local authorities build new council estates they are given adequate funds by the Government to ensure that community facilities are provided at the outset, and not five years later?

Mr. Armstrong: That is a problem that has taxed successive Governments through the years. We try to ensure that amenities and facilities are available on these estates. I understand the urgency of the situation. If the hon. Gentleman has particular cases in mind he ought to make the strongest possible representation to the council concerned.

Mr. Stephen Ross: When dealing with the private sector, the greatest thing that the hon. Gentleman can do to relieve housing need is to allow the owners of empty properties to let them today or tomorrow, before he brings in any scheme for requisition. That is the first thing that he ought to be ready to do.

Mr. Armstrong: That is one suggestion that we are considering urgently.

Tramways

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies his Department is making about the contribution that the tram can make towards the solution of urban transport problems.

Mr. Carmichael: The character sties of tramways are well known and the prospects of introducing them have been studied in a number of cases

Mr. Adley: I understand the difficulty of merely returning to the old system, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that because of the fuel crisis and fears about urban pollution, major cities such as Amsterdam, Zurich and Melbourne may have something to teach us about the way in which we disposed of our trams and trolley buses so quickly. Does he also agree that the advent of bus lanes in so many British cities is a tacit acknowledgement that reserving traffic accommodation for public service vehicles is something that should be given further study by the Government?

Mr. Carmichael: I think the hon. Gentleman should know that the last matter to which he referred is continually being studied and that as new transportation studies come forward from local authorities the provision of segregated public transport lanes, particularly in the crucial areas, is given a great deal of priority. It is for local authorities to decide which transport system best meets their needs, but, as a general point, it is one thing to retain and improve an existing tram system in some cities and quite another to reintroduce it on existing streets. A segregated system is being built on Tyne-side and Clydeside. The Tyneside metro is to use an extension of the British Rail tracks, and this could be done in many cities in Britain.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: May I urge the Minister, nevertheless, to consider favourably the reintroduction of an improved tram system, bearing in mind the fact that trams were replaced by buses when petrol was cheap and when pollution was ignored, and also the fact that studies on the introduction of electric traction in urban areas by means of battery cars show that they are much more expensive and less efficient technically than overhead wires would be?

Mr. Carmichael: On the question of the buses being introduced because of cheaper petrol, one of the other reasons was that in the expanding towns buses provided greater flexibility than tramcars. The points raised by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are being studied not just in Britain but throughout the world, because we all realise that the question of urban transport will need to be considered in great depth and all new systems will


require thorough examination. We are trying to do that as fast as resources and ability allow.

Mr. Fry: I respect the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), but does the hon. Gentleman agree that a far greater contribution could be made to solving our urban transport problem by two other means—first, a good look at the way in which schoolchildren are transported to school and the more effective use of such transport, and, secondly, a look at the whole question of licensing public service vehicles? It is obvious that in many parts of the country the National Bus Company is failing to meet public need.

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Member is now moving on to rural rather than urban transport. There are historic reasons as between the National Bus Company and local authorities concerning the provision of the services. It is a question that we are always considering.
On the general question of schoolchildren, one of the real problems of modern society is that almost everyone wishes to travel between 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock in the morning and 5 o'clock and 7 o'clock at night, and this puts an intolerable strain on any public service.

Sir John Hall: As it is now three or four years since the Select Committee on Expenditure published its report on urban transport planning, with strong recommendations about the use of special traffic lanes for public transport, will the Under-Secretary say why it has taken so long to implement those excellent recommendations?

Mr. Carmichael: A great deal of this is ultimately the responsibility of the local authorities, and whenever possible the Department encourages them. We have made a number of studies—for example, in South Hampshire, Sheffield and Rotherham—on the question of segregated services, trams, and so on. It is an easier problem to state than to solve. It is not easy to go into an existing urban area and say that a particular area shall be totally segregated for public transport. It can be done only on a local basis, with as much encouragement from Central Government as possible.

M67

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when a decision is likely to be made about the route of the proposed M67.

Mr. Carmichael: The M67 motorway as at present planned consists of two schemes, the Denton relief road and the Hyde bypass. The routes for both schemes were fixed in 1972.

Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that these are just preliminaries to a much less desirable scheme for driving a motorway through the Peak District National Park? Is he further aware that he could make a handsome contribution to the saving of public expenditure by scrapping this scheme altogether, and is he prepared to talk about the eventual route from the Denton relief road and the Hyde bypass, if this is ever completed?

Mr. Carmichael: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interests in this matter. There have been a number of Adjournment debates on it. I assure him that the Denton relief road and the Hyde bypass do not by any means commit us to the Manchester-Sheffield road, and I assure him that before any final decisions are made on the question whether there should be a road through the Longendale corridor, there will be very wide-ranging discussions within the House and very far outside it.

Land Acquisition

Mr. Graham Page: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total cost of land acquisition in the first five years of the Community Land Account; and how soon he expects the fund to show a profit.

Mr. Oakes: The memorandum to the Community Land Bill sets out fully the costs and receipts that will save about £700 million a year when the scheme is in full operation. The costs at the end of five years in individual land accounts will vary widely between areas with some in profit and some on the way there, according to the demands of their programmes to cater for local needs.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman must be kidding himself if he thinks he will


save £700 million. Bearing in mind that the Financial Memorandum gives certain figures, has he reconsidered those figures at all, such as the £400 million a year which is to be spent foolishly on this stupid enterprise?

Mr. Oakes: We have spent many hours on this matter, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that you do not want any further time to be spent on it. The figures are accurate, and we are not reconsidering them.

Council House Tenants

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Government intend to review the conditions of tenancy of council house tenants.

Mr. Armstrong: Conditions of tenancy are a matter for the local authority concerned, but the need for further guidance is being considered.

Mr. Watkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are wide discrepancies in conditions of tenancy from authority to authority, and that there is growing resentment at the one-sided nature of the obligations? When will the Government give further consideration to security of tenure for council house tenants?

Mr. Armstrong: I am aware of the wide variety. We are anxious to get rid of any fussy and restrictive regulations affecting tenants.
With regard to security of tenure for council tenants, we have given the commitment and we shall honour it, but we have been urgently busy on what we regard as the most critical issues, and concentrating on them. We shall certainly honour our commitment concerning security of tenure for tenants.

Mr. Eyre: Is the Minister aware that hundreds of thousands of tenants living on council estates, particularly in large towns and cities, are very critical of the bureaucratic way in which their lives are dominated by council officialdom? Is he further aware that those tenants need and would welcome a tenants' charter which set out their rights on basic matters—the Minister mentioned crucial matters, but did not specify them—such as transfers, decorations, and so on, and give them a greater say in how their lives are run?

Mr. Armstrong: The problem of management of housing is a topical issue, and we want to involve tenants to a much greater extent. That is why we are now advertising for a new housing management adviser who will give advice so that we can involve tenants far more in the running of their houses and the environment around them.

Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend encourage local authorities when granting new tenancies, to grant them in the name of both husband and wife? In cases where existing tenancies are issued simply in the name of the husband, will he encourage local authorities to translate these, similarly, where both husband and wife have an equal right to the tenancy?

Mr. Armstrong: My hon. Friend has mentioned the kind of detail that we are considering. We issue guidelines and are in consultation with local authorities, but we have to preserve a balance. We believe that members of local housing authorities are the people who really understand the needs of their tenants, and therefore much more of the initiative will come from them.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to local authorities on enabling council tenants to transfer from one town to another.

Mr. Armstrong: General guidance on the removal of obstacles to mobility was given in a report of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, which was commended to local authorities in 1969.
We are considering whether further steps are needed as part of our general review of housing management.

Mr. Finsberg: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. Will he develop it one stage further and accept the complaint which many of us receive from our constituents about the stupid bureaucracy in which local authorities, irrespective of their political control, seem to indulge when tenants wish to transfer within the authorities' areas? Will the hon. Gentleman consider meeting some of us to discuss this point?

Mr. Armstrong: I should be prepared to do that. There is a demand which is not being met. We are considering all


aspects, because we want to offer proper facilities so that proper exchanges may take place.

Sir John Hall: In considering the guidance that the Minister might give to local authorities will he consider also the related problem of applicants for council housing being forced to move into a neighbouring area in order to find temporary accommodation, and because of that being taken off the first local authority list and having to start at the bottom of the list operated by their new local authority? Surely this is undesirable, and surely there should be much greater interchange between neighbouring authorities.

Mr. Armstrong: Local authorities have been advised many times to remove the residential qualifications, but this is a matter for each local authority, and practice varies throughout the country.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the Minister aware of a problem which exists in Devon, where people deliberately move into holiday accommodation with the intention of having to be evicted, thereby jumping the queue for local authority accommodation in the area? This is a very real problem in certain areas, and the practice is grossly unfair to many families who have been on the waiting list for local authority housing for many years.

Mr. Armstrong: I am aware of that point. That is why we are conducting such a thorough review. In removing one anomaly it is possible to create three others.

Building Societies Association

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he had any discussions with the Building Societies Association during the parliamentary recess.

Mr. Crosland: My Department has continued the regular contacts maintained with the Building Societies Association over a wide range of subjects.

Mr. McCrindle: Does the Secretary of State agree that it has become clear that the building societies, with their more stringent lending requirements, are proving incapable of taking over from the local authorities in the way that the Government required? Has the Secretary

of State any advice to give to people who wish to buy older property, or whose income is below the requirement of the building societies, for clearly the Secretary of State has led such people to believe that with the ending of local authority lending, the building societies would be able to replace them?

Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman has referred to what appears to be a perpetual misapprehension. There is no question of ending local authority mortgage lending. It has been reduced, but will continue, and at a rate which, by historic standards, is not unsubstantial.
On the major question of what I might call the £100 million transfer from local authority mortgage lending to building society lending, this is going ahead well, and I very much hope that the first advances under the scheme will be made by the building societies in the next few weeks, if not days.
At the request of the local authority associations, discussions are now taking place with building societies on the question whether the £100 million transfer may be substantially extended.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Although I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, may I ask him to explain why he thinks that the offer of funds made by certain building societies to major local authorities to assist in further local authority loans should not be accepted, as some of the local authorities wish?

Mr. Crosland: I should like to have details of that question, but I must emphasise that it looks as though the entire £100 million which we wanted building societies to take over from local authority lending will, in practice, be taken over by the building societies.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the building societies have now paid back the loan that the Government gave them last year? Will he also say what plans and what developments are taking place concerning the setting-up of their own stabilisation fund?

Mr. Crosland: I am glad to say that the whole of the £500 million loan has now been repaid to the Government by the societies.


Concerning the stabilisation fund, we have achieved a stabilisation policy, because the amount of mortgage lending is now determined not solely by the building societies but by the societies and the Government in co-operation and consultation.

Mr. Sainsbury: Although he says that the policy does not mean a cessation of local authority lending, is the Secretary of State aware that in practice it has meant that in many areas no local authority lending has been possible for a considerable time? Is he prepared to risk the displeasure of the Tribunites, to whom he recently referred, by having a rational look at the means of making better use of existing accommodation, and considering whether local authority lending is more effective than municipalisation?

Mr. Crosland: I do not think it is a question of saying that one or the other is the more effective. In the case of the £100 million switch, given that building society lending was running at a record level at the time, it appeared to me, to most of my hon. Friends—and, I should have thought, to most hon. Gentlemen opposite—to make sense to transfer a certain sum of money from local authority improvement and municipalisation.
Certain local authorities have now run out of their quota for the year, but that is only because they had the good sense to foresee what the Government might do, and lent the whole of their quota in the first three months.

Squatting

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussion he has had with local authorities on the question of illegal squatting.

Mr. Armstrong: My Department has recently consulted the local authority associations, and is considering their replies. Authorities themselves are aware of the policies and action they can—and should—pursue in respect of squatting, and of the problems which give rise to it.

Mr. Costain: In the course of the discussion, did the Minister bear in mind that the law, to put it mildly, is a little confused? Will he give local authorities

an assurance that during the next Session new legislation will be brought in to clarify the situation? Has it yet become apparent to him that a lot of this squatting is due to the stupid rent controls introduced by the Government?

Mr. Armstrong: If the hon. Member has any direct evidence, my Department will be very pleased to consider it seriously. A change in the law would be a matter for the Home Secretary.

Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend agree that many local authorities have been able to reach commonsense and acceptable arrangements with squatting groups, particularly in cases where large amounts of property, available on a short-term basis, exist? Does he agree, having considered the replies from local authorities, that clear guidance should be given to them so that the open warfare which exists in some areas can be stopped as soon as possible and we can return to commonsense co-operation between local authorities and squatters' groups?

Mr. Armstrong: This is an urgent and serious problem. My Department is anxious to make the best possible use of housing stock, and our talks with local authorities are designed to speed up procedures so that empty properties are properly taken over and used for people in real housing need.

Local Government Staffs

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with procedures for controlling staff numbers in local government.

Mr. Oakes: Each local authority is responsible for the numbers of staff it employs to carry out its statutory functions. But, as part of the measures needed to limit public expenditure, local government has established new machinery for collecting quarterly returns of staff numbers. These figures are being closely scrutinised by central and local government, acting jointly and against the background of national economic policies.

Mr. Jones: Is the Minister referring to the Joint Staff Watch Survey, which shows an increase of 10,785 full-time and more than 15,000 part-time employees over the revised figures for March? In the context of local government expenditure, will the


Government be prepared to support local authorities who consider it necessary to secure staff reductions?

Mr. Oakes: Two quarter's figures have been collected and published. The comparison shows an increase of under 1 per cent., counting full-and part-time equivalents together. However, two quarters' figures are not a sufficient guide to current trends. The association is, however, having a word with the local authorities about this.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend accept that local authority salaries now constitute a significant part of public expenditure? In most years there is no Central Government control over the number of staffs and wage levels, but that is punctuated by a year—like the present one—of ferocious restraints. Would it not be better to devise a system in which Central Government had a greater measure of influence on local authority numbers?

Mr. Oakes: It may be that the Government have no formal powers over individual authorities about the employment of staff—nor should they have, in respect of individual staffs. On wage levels, local authorities are subject to the Counter-inflation policy and the £6 a week limit, with severe repercussions for authorities which go against that policy.

Mr. Speed: Much has been made of the need for local authorities to hold down staff and expenditure levels, but when will there be comparable manpower savings and programme savings by the Department?

Mr. Oakes: We watch our staff in the Department equally well.

Rent Act 1974

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effects of the Rent Act 1974.

Mr. Armstrong: The Act was intended to provide security of tenure for furnished tenants of absentee landlords. It has been successful in this.

Mr. Morris: We recognise that part of the aim was to provide security of tenure, but will the Government now recognise that another effect has been to dry up the

supply of furnished accommodation, with an estimated loss of nearly 1 million units? Will they now address themselves to this problem and devise a form of tenancy agreement which will allow landlords to let their properties?

Mr. Armstrong: Despite the request from this Box for hard evidence, there is no hard evidence that we have had as yet—

Mr. Morris: Yes, there is.

Mr. Armstrong: If the hon. Gentleman has any, he can submit it, and I assure him that it will be seriously considered. We have no hard evidence that the Act has caused a significant acceleration of the housing shortage.

Mr. Rossi: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have now entered the second academic year with many hundreds of students disadvantaged and without proper accommodation, because of the effects of the Rent Act? When will the Minister introduce the legislation, long since promised to me, to exempt all student accommodation from the effects of the Act?

Mr. Armstrong: The hon. Member will know that this matter has had serious consideration in my Department, that we have had discussions with the Department of Education and Science and with the National Union of Students, and that they were reluctant that we should proceed with legislation. Again, we have no evidence that the kind of assertion that the hon. Gentleman has made is true—

Mr. Morris: Rubbish.

Mr. Armstrong: The hon. Member must contain himself.
We have no evidence of any kind, yet, that the students feel that the situation is being made worse by this Act.

AGRICULTURE (EEC MINISTERS' MEETING)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to report to the House on the results of the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 13th and 14th October.
The Council agreed that the representative rate for the pound—the green


Pound—should be adjusted by 5·8 per cent. This will raise support prices for United Kingdom producers by about 6·2 per cent. in sterling terms. The change in the green pound will generally take effect from 27th October but will be deferred for certain commodities. For wheat the date of implementation will be 1st July 1976; this will defer any effect on the price of bread. For beef the date of implementation will be 5th January; this will avoid any incentive to put beef into intervention in the autumn period of heavy marketings.
The agreement reached in Luxembourg will be of real benefit to British farmers. It should be worth about £90 million to them in a full year, after taking account of its effect on feed costs. Of this sum, over £50 million will go to our milk producers. We shall now increase the guarantee for milk by an extra 2·3p a gallon from November, which will mean that the effective guarantee over the winter months will now be over 40p a gallon. The average guaranteed price for the year will be 37·04p.
I announced in the summer that the retail price of milk would have to rise by 1p in the autumn. Following this increase in the producer guaranteed price and the adjustment I announced on 29th September, the retail price will now rise by 1½p per pint to 8½p per pint from 2nd November.
I am sure that this settlement will help to meet the milk producers' difficulties. It comes on top of the increase of 2·2p per gallon decided in July, making 4½p per gallon altogether. There will be scope for a further increase at the beginning of the next milk year. This will be for the Government to decide after the Annual Review.
There will also be a useful increase in the producer price for sugar beet. For beef the new buying-in price will put a higher floor in the market in 1976. The cereals grower should also benefit in due course. Pigmeat processors, who have been in difficulties, will greatly welcome the reduction in monetary compensatory amounts.
We have agreed to these changes in the interest of our agriculture industry and in order to safeguard our food supplies. We have sought to keep a balance with consumer interests. The main effect on

the consumer is on milk, which I have already mentioned, and butter and cheese, on which there may be increases of about 2p a pound depending on the market situation. Otherwise the effect is expected to be less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. on the cost of living. It will be postponed for bread and flour until July next year. This is a very considerable benefit. Even when everything is taken into account the total effect in a full year is expected to be less than 1 per cent. on the cost of food and less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. on the total cost of living.
Finally, I am glad to say that the representative rate for the Irish green pound has been devalued less than the United Kingdom green pound. In consequence, it will be possible to end the monetary charges which are at present applied to agricultural trade between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. This will be very welcome both to farmers and to traders, particularly in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jopling: I thank the Minister for making this statement and should like to begin with a crucial question. Will this action be enough to halt the decline in the livestock industry?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, it will not.

Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that he is once more bringing forward proposals that the food-producing industry has already denounced as too little and too late? Does he recall that, when he made an announcement in the House on 23rd July of a 5 per cent. devaluation, we told him both before and after the event that it would not be enough to stop this decline? Is he aware that events have proved us right and that, in milk-producing alone, 270 producers went out of business in August and 300 in September?
Will the right hon. Gentleman get it into his head that this sort of patchwork policy is just not good enough and that the industry must have long-term policies and not these hand-to-mouth, short-term, shoring-up jobs which in the end will damage the interests of the housewives of this country?
Finally, is the Minister aware that last week we announced that, unless he did something quickly, we would put down


a motion to reduce his salary? In future, will he start thinking ahead rather than waiting for us to light a bonfire under him before he does anything?

Mr. Peart: I had hoped that the hon. Member would be more constructive. It is true that people hoped that I would get a 10 per cent. change in the green pound last July. I was able to get 5 per cent. This time, I have got 5·8 per cent.—altogether, 10·8 per cent. in a short period. I believe that this will be welcomed by the farming community despite what hon. Members say.
The hon. Member should appreciate that this is an uncertain and difficult period for everyone in the country. The battle against inflation is of concern and must be won, but I have kept the dairy farmers ahead of inflation—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Nonsense.

Mr. Torney: Shut up. The hon. Gentleman knows nothing, anyway.

Mr. Peart: Let me give the figures. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) should listen. The average guaranteed price for the whole of 1975–76 will now be over 40 per cent. above the price set at the 1974 annual review. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will realise that the effective guarantee for the winter months from 1st November will be over 50 per cent. above the level of guarantee fixed at the 1974 annual review. I believe that this award is a positive contribution, and it has been recognised as such in the Council of Agriculture Ministers.

Mr. Torney: I should like to welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and to congratulate him. While helping the milk industry, which needed help, he has man aged to keep the increase in price to an absolute minimum. That is very good. Does he agree that much of the situation in the farming industry, particularly dairy farming, cannot have been caused since February last year when this Government came to power, but that many of the troubles caused must be due to actions or lack of action by the Tory Party? I should like to say that it is a great pity—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members want to ask supplementary questions.

I cannot allow this to go on very long. I hope that questions will be short.

Mr. Peart: It is true that the decline in production took place a long time ago. In fact, the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) knows that his own Government encouraged people to go out of the dairy industry.

Mr. Geraint Howells: On behalf of my Liberal colleagues and myself, I should like to congratulate the Minister on his efforts in Luxembourg and on achieving a little extra financial aid for the agriculture industry. Does he not agree that stability and confidence will not be restored in the agriculture industry until producers have adequately recouped their costs like any other industry in Britain? Does the Minister agree that the conversion scheme has had a disastrous effect on milk production in this country and that the sooner we do away with the green pound the better it will be for all concerned? Will he give an assurance that he will do everything in his power to retain the guaranteed price system that we have in this country?

Mr. Peart: I am grateful for what the Liberal spokesman has said on this matter. This must be seen in the context of what I achieved for the livestock industry. I have stated over and over again that the variable premium system has been welcomed by the industry and has strengthened the market. That has been appreciated by the farming community.

Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will firmly resist the present efforts being made in the EEC to dishonour the agreement reached on New Zealand dairy products last spring?

Mr. Peart: I raised the position of the New Zealand dairy industry in a speech to the Council of Ministers yesterday. There was no major debate, but they have taken note of what I said. I am watching the situation very carefully. The promises made at the summit meeting, and what was agreed there, must be fulfilled.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Since every forecast the Minister has made to this House, since taking office 18 months ago, about the results of his policies has been proved wrong, will he tell us whether he believes that the measures he has just announced


will check the decline in the milk industry? Is he aware that, as the Transport and General Workers' Union is finding that some of its members are losing their livelihoods through the closure of milk factories, it is now belatedly backing a sane policy? Does the Minister honestly believe that the measures announced today will check the decline in milk output and the increases in imports, with the flow of currency across exchanges which that implies?

Mr. Peart: It will make a contribution. I wish that hon. Members would praise what we have done instead of talking down the industry.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Answer the question.

Mr. Watt: While congratulating the Minister on his comparative success in Europe, will he not agree that the year-round figure of 40 pence a gallon which I gave him in July is the only sort of figure that will inspire the confidence of milk producers? Does he realise that it takes more than one man's lifetime to establish a dairy herd and that his Government have done more to destroy what has been built up in many lifetimes than any other Government in history?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. If the hon. Member reads a very fine article in the Economist this week, he will see a graph which shows that the trend has been continuing for a long time. I hope that the measures which I have anounced today will help to arrest it.

Mr. Hardy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the dairy farmers were in despair and that this was little eased by the electioneering gimmick of a small price increase during the February 1974 General Election campaign, but that he has now given them more than enough to meet their increased costs since then? Could he increase the assurance that dairy farmers need to feel at the present time by saying a little more about the possibility of increases in their returns in 1976, if this should be necessary, so that they can maintain the supply not only of liquid milk but of milk for manufacture.

Mr. Peart: We shall look at returns and the state of the industry and consider

this in the annual price review negotiations which will be starting soon.

Mr. Biffen: Referring to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), will the Minister indicate how, in the light of the new financial arrangements for the dairy industry, he thinks dairy herd inseminations for December and January will compare with the corresponding months of a year ago?

Mr. Peart: I believe they will show not as much improvement as they should show. What I have done cannot stop the drift downwards in a month or two, but for the long term we have shown that we believe that the dairy industry must be adequately supported. I am glad that the announcements have been welcomed by the spokesman for the Liberal Party.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I congratulate him on the statements he is continually making because they prove the correctness of the speeches he made for many years when he said that if we joined the Common Market food prices would rise drastically? Is he aware that telling pensioners and those on fixed incomes that a halfpenny, a penny or twopence on eggs, butter and cheese represents only a fraction of a per cent. on the cost of living is no help to them at all? Does he realise that the people of this country are getting fed up with the large increases in the cost of living, particularly in food prices, that he is having to announce almost monthly from that Box?

Mr. Peart: The figures I gave show that the effect on the consumer is quite small. Producers deserve a fair and adequate return and that is what our measures will achieve.

Mr. Molyneaux: While welcoming the reduction in the differential between the British and Eire green pounds, can the Minister indicate when we might expect the two pounds to be in parity?

Mr. Peart: I cannot say. There is still a difference. This will have to be considered at another meeting.

Mr. Swain: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his statement, may I ask whether he is aware that there are


two very important products of the agricultural industry that he has not mentioned? Is he aware that there has been a serious shortfall in potato production in this country and that there will be a serious shortfall in brassica production? When shall we have to start importing brassica and potatoes and at what cost? As my right hon. Friend is not responsible for the prices the consumer has to pay, will he introduce legislation to give himself some control over retail prices?

Mr. Peart: We have started importing and stopped exports of potatoes because of the situation created by bad weather conditions. I will look at the points raised by my hon. Friend but I could not deal with them in Luxembourg. They were not on the agenda.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I do not wish to attack or praise him on a subject which I do not understand, but can he tell me, as the hon. Member for a city constituency—if there is likely to be a shortage of milk—whether the Milk Marketing Board is wasting money by spending a great deal on advertisements on television urging people to drink more milk?

Mr. Peart: I cannot intervene in the operations of the Milk Marketing Board. It is an independent body. I believe that the award which I have announced today will help to restore confidence.

Mr. Buchan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the dilemma which he faces and which he cannot solve, as has been shown by questions today, is how to reconcile within the Common Market structure the needs of the producers and the needs of the consumers? The problem is that the amount of money required to fulfil an expansion programme would add too much to food bills to be tolerated by the people of this country. Will he back the Germans and others who wish to oppose the present policy of cut-back in Europe and ensure that we continue an expansion programme in Britain?

Mr. Peart: I believe that the balance between consumer and producer, in the Market or out of the Market, has to be decided by individual Ministers and Governments. I am certain that even within the Market we can protect the consumer if necessary.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is necessary.

Mr. Peart: I have said that in this case I have done that. I have given a price increase to the producer. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) knows that a stocktaking debate is to take place in the Community, when the German attitude will be discussed. The Germans took the initiative on this matter and we have supported them in examining how the common agricultural policy is working. On Friday there will be a major debate in this House which I hope will be attended by all hon. Members who feel as strongly as does my hon. Friend about the agricultural policy.

Mr. Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there can be no increased production, no stopping of the slide out of milk, unless there is price parity between British farmers and European farmers? Will he also agree that it is no good defeating inflation but having no food for the British consumer?

Mr. Peart: I accept that and I agree with the hon. Member's comments about prices. Obviously we are still in the transitional period but the day will come when we shall need to have a full Community price.

Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the price of mutton and lamb is not protected at the moment by intervention buying? Can he say whether the question of a régime in mutton and lamb was discussed at the Council and what was the Government's attitude to that?

Mr. Peart: No, it was not discussed. There has been a proposal on these lines. The French and the Irish are anxious to have a new sheepmeat régime. I would rather see what the proposals are before commenting on them.

Mr. Marten: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that on the previous occasion—not this one—he asked for a 10 per cent. devaluation and got only 5 per cent.? That was the implication of what he said. If that is so, does it not show how we are increasingly losing control over our national farming affairs? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this new scheme will allow more milk to go into manufacture?

Mr. Peart: I was asked by people—including the Opposition and the NFU—to go for 10 per cent. I had discussions with my colleagues before I went to Europe and I was able to go to 5 per cent. [Interruption.] I have said that. Now we have got another 5·8 per cent. I believe that in the end this will help cheese and butter production and will arrest the decline.

Mr. James Johnson: In view of the obscurantist spleen of the official Opposition, may I ask my right hon. Friend who on earth speaks for the farming community in the United Kingdom? Is it the professional negotiators of the NFU or is it the amateurs on the Conservative benches who farm a few acres, who speak in this fashion today?

Mr. Peart: It is the Minister and the Government who make the decision and who negotiate in Brussels.

Mr. Crouch: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me my thanks at least for the result of his fight in the Commission to get a good and proper return for the milk producer in this country, which will enable him to remain viable? Will the right hon. Gentleman follow this action by dispelling any feeling which might arise from his statement that he is being complacent and has reached the end of the road in his attempts to make the farmer viable? Is he aware that he has not gone far enough?

Mr. Peart: I am grateful for the hon. Member's remarks. I am not complacent. I said so in my statement. At the annual review we have to discuss the dairy prices in the Community on a Community basis.

Mr. Sillars: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all fair-minded people will believe that a £50 million investment in the dairy industry at this time is substanstial? Will he confirm that the crunch will take place in the price review? In his conversations with the NFU, will he explain to it that some sensitivity on its part towards the needs of consumers might help to mobilise public opinion behind an expanded investment programme for agriculture?

Mr. Peart: I accept my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope that the NFU leaders in

Scotland, England and Wales and Northern Ireland will accept that this is a reasonable agreement.

Mr. Boscawen: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that to behave in this way, throwing a lifeline at the dairy industry every three months or so, is no way to treat a great industry? Does he not agree that what is needed is a longer-term look at the needs of the industry aimed at giving it a long-term price structure so that it is able to plan ahead for two or three years? Does he not agree that looking only two or three months ahead is useless?

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that the price negotiations have taken place annually. We cannot help that. I believe that we should have a long-term strategy.

Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the clatter of empty cannon from the Conservative benches and instead accept that working farmers, particularly milk producers, will take the deal which he has brought back from Luxembourg as evidence of my right hon. Friend's good faith and belief in the White Paper "Food from our own resources"? May I ask my right hon. Friend to think again about the funding of this expansion and to recognise that all the money needed to obtain an expansion in home food production cannot possible come from the consumer, particularly at this time?

Mr. Peart: I believe, as I said in the White Paper, that the funding must come from the market.

Mr. Whitelaw: Would the right hon. Gentleman not think it wise to ignore some of the rather minor political points made by some of his right hon. Friends and instead recognise what is undoubtedly the fact about our farming industry—and what my hon. Friends have said all along—namely, that the long-term confidence of the industry is at risk? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman realises this. I hope that he will confirm the importance of accepting this for the future and will agree that short-term policies will not do when long-term confidence is needed.

Mr. Peart: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks more constructively than does his neighbour, the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr.


Jopling). I agree that we need a long-term strategy. I explained this in Carlisle at the annual meeting of the Cumbria NFU. It is my intention to pursue this long-term strategy.

BILL PRESENTED

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS

Mr. Secretary Shore, supported by Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Secretary Mulley, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Mr. Eric Deakins, and Mr. Hugh Jenkins presented a Bill to make provision for payments by the British Film Fund Agency to the National Film Finance Corporation and for the application of those payments by that Corporation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 235].

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Ordered,
That the Child Benefit (Northern Ireland) of General Grant) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee OP Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]
That the draft Local Government (Reduction Order 1975 (S.I. 1975, No. 1504) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]
That the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1503) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]
That the Fishing Vessels (Survey and Inspection) (Fees) Regulations 1975 (S.I., No. 954) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Orders of the Day — TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

REPEALS OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 8, at beginning insert "in".

3.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With that amendment, we shall discuss Lords Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 9, after "union" insert "subsections (3), (4) and (5)" and Lords Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, in page 1, line 21, at end insert new Clause A:

Orders of the Day — RIGHTS OF WORKERS AGGRIEVED BY EXCLUSION OR EXPULSION FROM TRADE UNION

A. After section 5 of the principal Act, there shall be inserted the following section:
"Rights of workers aggrieved by exclusion or expulsion from trade union to apply to tribunal.
5A.—(1) A worker aggrieved by his exclusion or expulsion from any trade union, branch or section may apply to a tribunal appointed for the adjudication of such grievances for a declaration that he is entitled to be a member of that trade union, branch or section.
(2) The tribunal shall be appointed by the Secretary of State in consultation with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress and the Chairman of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service and shall have an independent person with legal qualifications as chairman and two other members.
(3) The procedure at such a tribunal shall be in accordance with rules made by the Trades Union Congress and approved by the Council on Tribunals.
(4) If at any time there is not existent such a Tribunal and such rules, such an application may be made instead to an industrial tribunal in accordance with industrial tribunal regulations.
(5) Where any such declaration has been made either by the tribunal or by an industrial tribunal as the case may be and has not been implemented by the union, branch or section concerned within any period specified in the declaration or if no such period is


specified within a reasonable period, the worker may apply to the High Court, or in Scotland, the Court of Session for an injunction, interdict or such relief (including compensation) as the court may think just and expedient in all the circumstances of the case.
(6) Nothing in this section or section 2(5) above shall prejudice or in any way reduce the common law rights of a person who has applied to join, but not been given membership of, or who claims to be and to remain a member of, or who has been expelled from, a trade union."

Mr. Foot: The amendment would leave unrepealed the statutory right of a worker to seek remedies against arbitrary or unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from a union which is contained in Section 5 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. It would, however, replace the present provision for complaint to an industrial tribunal by provision for complaint to a special tribunal, appointed by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Chairman of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service, and with the TUC, with a legally qualified independent chairman. That would be a statutory tribunal on the same lines as the voluntary independent review committee which the TUC proposed to establish.
The right of the worker to seek redress through the High Court if the tribunal's declaration is not implemented and the legally defective subsection (5) of the original Section 5 are retained by the amendment.
I shall try to deal succinctly with this grouping of amendments not because I do not regard the matter as of great importance but because we have had debates upon it on numerous occasions over the past 18 months. I dare say that some recollection of those debates will be forthcoming today. But I imagine that it would be for everyone's convenience that we should not lengthen the debate unnecessarily. I hope to set a good example in that respect.
4.0 p.m.
The amendment passed in the other place makes a concession to the view which the Government have put in the past. It recognises that unions have an overriding interest in the question of exclusions or expulsions and that any supervisory body should be constituted in a way that takes that into account. However, the amendment still does not meet the basic Government objection to this

proposition, which we have put throughout—the objection in principle to the intervention of the law in the internal affairs of trade unions. We have also pointed to industrial relations consequences, in practice, which we believe could be serious, and we have drawn attention to many legal defects in the amendment.
We believe that the law is an inappropriate and ineffective instrument to intervene in decisions by unions about whom they are to take into membership. Even if it were acceptable in principle that the law should tell democratically constituted bodies whom they must take into membership in this way, it would be ineffective in practice in achieving the desired result. We have worked on that principle.
The Government have said throughout, from the beginning of these discussions—I have said it many times—that they are convinced that it is necessary to have safeguards for individuals in a closed shop situation. We have said so on many occasions, and that view derives from a common sense approach to the situation. It was underlined in the Donovan Report, which discussed the matter in this context. We wished to secure a method by which the individual would be protected from injustice and to ensure that he would have a remedy.
The possibility of High Court injunctions and legal sanctions is likely to produce ill-will and a bad industrial relations climate, hostile to the achievement of those objectives. Therefore one of the reasons why we prefer the method which the Government suggested for this matter is that the individual will be better protected by the provisions which we suggest than by the legal provisions which were introduced in the other place.
Apart from failing to deal effectively with the objective it sets out to achieve, the amendment has other undesirable and irrelevant legal side effects. For example, subsection (5) aims at preserving common law rights of action. That is unnecessary. Such common law rights as exist are in no way threatened. But, worse, the proposed amendment is harmful and may undermine long-standing legal immunities in respect of the purposes of the unions, and the legality of their rules, which are in restraint of trade, given by Section 2(5) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations


Act. This point has been put to the Opposition on a number of occasions in this House and in the other place, but I do not believe that it can be said that they have made any adequate reply.
What we have proposed to deal with the problem—and what the TUC has proposed—is the establishment of an independent tribunal or review body set up by the TUC after consultations which were proposed in the Bill as we sent it to the other place. The establishment of that body marks a new development in trade union history and it is one of considerable importance.
It does not mean that the trade union movement is seeking to keep everything within its own boundaries. Indeed the trade union movement as a whole will have surveillance over the operations of the individual trade unions in a way that has not existed before. In these circumstances that is right, and it can also have a good effect in ensuring that the individual trade unions seek to avoid injustices to individuals and to avoid reference to the courts from arising. That development should be welcomed by the House.
We would be most unwise to say that the independent review body proposed by the TUC does not mark a great step forward. We should also be careful not to take legal action which could prejudice the operation of this new independent review, which has a better opportunity of providing safeguards for the individual than has the legal machinery. If the legal machinery or the absolutely thorough reference to the tribunals were to be incorporated, such as is envisaged in the Lords amendment and such as the Opposition have sometimes supported, and if that procedure were to be brought into operation to protect the individual, it is unlikely that the individual could be reinstated, once having been arbitrarily excluded or having lost his job. Very often reinstatement is the aim which the individual wishes to secure, and under the arrangements of the independent review, the possibilities of reinstatement are much greater.
I ask the House to reject the Lords amendment, so as to give a good start to the independent review procedure proposed by the TUC. I believe that that is much the best way of dealing with the

problem, as it may exist. It is the best way of setting about it. If we found that that procedure did not work, we would have to seek other means of protection for the individual, but I think that it is much better, when we have a new proposal for dealing with it, mat we should give that proposal the best possible start. On those grounds I ask the House to reject the Lords amendment.

Mr. Leon Brittan: My right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has asked me to express his apologies to the House for his absence today. A long-standing engagement involving other people has taken him abroad.
For well over a generation the desirability of the closed shop has been one of the most hotly contested issues in industrial relations. Its supporters and opponents alike have been equally vehement. If that controversy could be stilled, a major source of national contention would be removed.
During the debates on this Bill and its predecessor, the Opposition substantially altered their previous position in the hope that this end could be achieved and some sorely needed common ground reached. However great our reservations about the closed shop, we were prepared to accept that it should be permissible, subject to some limited but crucial qualifications. Those qualifications were that proper safeguards should be provided for minority unions, for freedom of expression, and for the individual who is treated unfairly by a union or who has conscientious objections to joining one.
The Government refused to accept those qualifications and have thereby rejected the golden opportunity of achieving a reasonable compromise between our support for the rights of the individual and the strong feeling within parts of the trade union movement that the closed shop is an industrial necessity.
Accordingly today we find ourselves supporting the amendment made in another place which is designed to protect an individual against unfair exclusion from a trade union or unfair expulsion from it. There is no dispute between the parties as to the need for protection in a situation of this kind, especially, but not only, in a closed shop situation.


Today membership of the trade unions affects, and is likely to continue to affect, a man's livelihood, and is one of the most crucial employment matters. The only dispute between the parties is as to the form in which protection from unfair exclusion and expulsion could take.
That does not mean to say that we consider that the trade union movement is guilty of massive abuses of power. We have made it clear in all the debates that we accept that this problem affects only a limited number of individuals, but both in principle and in practice it is none the less important. The need for the protection of the individual was recognised by the Donovan Report, which recommended that statutory backing should be provided for a review body. The need was recognised by the Government. The strongest suggestions were made early last year and since that the Government would handle the matter by legislation.
Contrary to the fears of the Secretary of State, I do not propose to rehearse the various hints and implications in what he and his colleagues said in suggesting legislation. It was foreshadowed at one stage during the passage of the Employment Protection Bill. But nothing came. Finally, because nothing had come, Section 5 of the 1974 Act was passed handing the matter over to the industrial tribunals.
On Second Reading of this Bill, the Secretary of State spoke of the TUC proposal for a review committee. As we pointed out, we had distinct reservations about that as a basis for proceeding in this matter. Nevertheless, contrary to what the Secretary of State has implied in his suggestion of an attempt to subvert the proposal for a TUC review committee, the Lords amendment, which we attempted to bring about in Committee in this House, is an effort to build on it and to give it a very limited degree of statutory backing.

Mr. Sidney Bidwell: It is hard for those of us brought up in the trade union movement, with various views on the concept of the closed shop, to hear a member of the legal profession denigrating the principle of the closed shop in any shape or form, since his profession is wholly tied up with a closed shop.

When the House was debating the Industrial Relations Bill for so long, all these matters were considered and the Conservative Government then retreated on the basis of a fair compromise on the question of the agency shop. In the end, in the Industrial Relations Act we got the stupidity of people having to pay into a charity, and other such nonsense.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman has had the benefit of being here longer than I. But one of the advantages of coming to these matters slightly more fresh is that one can perhaps avoid refighting the battles of yesteryear and try to produce a genuine basis for moving forward. That is what we are trying to do. The basis for this debate is the very narrow one of whether it is right that the proposal which we have reluctantly accepted as being the working proposal—to deal with a problem which the Secretary of State concedes to exist, and has done so for 18 months—should be dealt with purely by a trade union review committee or given a modest degree of statutory backing.
The Secretary of State is familiar with the concept of a statutory back-up for what is claimed to be fundamentally voluntary procedure. He may recall that small piece of legislation last summer, the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act, which sought to implement the principle of a modest degree of statutory back-up for what was portrayed as an essentially voluntary policy. Rather in the same way, this modest Lords amendment seeks to do exactly that.
I am seeking to persuade the House that the differences between the procedure proposed by the Secretary of State and the one which the Lords have enacted are wholly in favour of the Lords amendment for the implimentation of the principle and purpose which I have thought we all shared. There are four essential differences between the right hon. Gentleman's proposal and the Lords amendment.
4.15 p.m.
The first of these differences relates to the appointment of the review committee. The right hon. Gentleman proposes that it should be done by the General Council of the TUC and that there should be consultation. We believe, with the Lords, that the tribunal should be appointed by the Secretary of State in consultation with the General Council of the TUC and


the chairman of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. We do not believe that to be an unreasonable suggestion in the light of the reasonable maxim that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done.
I have no doubt that if the TUC were left to this matter on its own it would operate in complete good faith, but an individual who feels aggrieved, however unjustly, will hardly be satisfied to deal with a body which appears to have been appointed by the parent body against which he is himself appealing. To suggest that it should be the other way round is surely an elementary protection for the basic principle of justice.
Let us imagine what an outcry there would be from the Labour Party if we suggested that questions of unfair dismissal should be determined by a review body appointed by the President of the CBI. Yet it is a precise parallel, and the change we suggest is wholly in the direction of fairness and justice.
The second change proposed is equally innocuous—that the procedure of such a tribunal shall be in accordance with rules made by the TUC but approved by the Council on Tribunals. The Council on Tribunals is not a judicial body. It is an administrative body, and it has not been subjected to criticism, as far as I am aware, from the Labour Party. We are not even suggesting that the Council on Tribunals should make the rules on procedure. We only suggest that it should exercise its basic rule as a watchdog on procedure and principles of justice and have the right to approve the rules made by the TUC. That is hardly a Draconian or hostile suggestion. It is not difficult to propose if one is sincere in desiring this limited but genuine problem to be dealt with fairly.
The third difference between the procedure proposed by the right hon. Gentleman and the one we support is that we would make provision for what will happen until the tribunal is set up, or if it is not set up. That may seem rather unreal or unnecessary until one reads the words of the Minister of State on 17th December 1974 in Committee on the Bill. He said:
This tribunal should be in existence early in the new year, possibly before we have completed our Committee proceedings. We are

not racing the TUC to see who can get there first, but the TUC intends that nothing we do in this Committee will hold up its progress towards the early establishment of this appeal tribunal."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17th December 1974; c. 62.]
This is 15th October 1975 and the appeal tribunal has not been appointed yet. We believe that, even if it is thought that industrial tribunals are an unsatisfactory forum, until this new body is set up they should fill the vacuum, which in any case ought not to exist.
The fourth difference between what we support and what the Secretary of State would have done relates to the important matter of enforcement. He advocates a proposal which has no means attached to it whereby to ensure that the findings of the review committee are ever implemented in any shape or form.
We are asked to believe that the unions will implement the proposal and leave it at that. I readily concede that in the overwhelming majority of cases the unions will implement the findings of the review committee.
However, it was not some dire Right-winger but an extremely distinguished libertarian law lord, Lord Salmon, who in another place pointed out the possibility of a union falling into the hands of those who were not prepared to implement the recommendations of the review committee and who said that there should be some fall-back procedure. If the Secretary of State is right in saying that the unions will obey the recommendations of the review committee there will be no problem. If the right hon. Gentleman had read slightly more carefully the Lords amendment he would have appreciated that if that happens none of the judicial intervention which he regards as anathema would come into existence. The implementation of the review committee's award would occur, and that would be an end of the matter.
Therefore, subsection (5), to which objection is taken, arises only in the situation in which the review committee's recommendation is ignored. In that limited situation, in which ex hypothesi an individual has been wronged and has been found to be wronged and in which he has been adjudged right but in which his union will not implement the recommendation, is it too much to ask that he should have recourse to the courts? That


is hardly a Draconian power. It is a reasonable one to apply as a last fallback position.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman expand a little on the enforcement aspect? No doubt he will recall exactly what the legal paraphernalia set up under the Industrial Relations Act attempted to do in the Goad case. All the legal enforcement for which the hon. Gentleman could have wished was used in that case but it failed miserably.

Mr. Brittan: There is a difference there because—to speak candidly about the political realities—the climate has changed It is plain from this that what is being re-introduced is not the National Industrial Relations Court that has caused such ill-will. In the fall-back position which we are envisaging, in which the trade union movement's own review body has been defied, I would anticipate—I hope with confidence and conviction—that the Trades Union Congress would support its own body and would not encourage any kind of action other than action in support of its own body. That is an important difference.
Another important difference is that recourse would not be to the National Industrial Relations Court but to the ordinary courts of the land. If the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) and the Secretary of State were to say that in no circumstances should the union member have recourse to the courts of the land, I could understand their approach, but this is not the position

taken by the Secretary of State. Again and again during the passage of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman has said that nothing will take away the rights of the individual under common law to apply to the courts. He is there implying that if the common law rights are followed and an order is made by the courts, the trade union movement will happily accept the order. If the trade union movement is prepared to accept enforcement by the courts of the land of common law rights, surely it will be prepared to accept the enforcement by the courts of the land of a finding of its own review committee. That is irrefutable.

The Government have proposed a solution to a limited problem but it is a matter of principle and, therefore, is of crucial importance. We have considerable reservations about it. However, we sought in this place unsuccessfully—others sought elsewhere successfully—to provide the minimum degree of backing to the proposal put forward by the Secretary of State in order to make it work and to give it effect.

It would be a tragedy if a matter that has been so controversial for so long could not be stilled at last by the acceptance of a modest further degree of protection for the rights of the individuals whom we have all been sent here to serve.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided:Ayes 281, Noes 235.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments disagreed to.

Clause 2

AMENDMENTS OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, leave out lines 43 to 47 and insert—
"(5A) For the purposes of this Act employees are to be treated, in relation to a

union membership agreement, as belonging to the same class if they have been identified as such by the parties to the agreement, and employees may be so identified by reference to any characteristics or circumstances whatsoever."".

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.


This was a Government amendment in another place. At that time, and when we discussed the issue previously, the Opposition welcomed the intention behind the amendment and even went so far as to assist in its wording.
The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the meaning of the term "identifiable class" when that term is used in the definition of a membership agreement in the Bill for the purposes of identifying groups of employees who are to be covered by or excluded from a union membership agreement by the terms of that agreement. The amendment has the advantage of overcoming a serious issue which has been raised. This is whether "identifiable class" would have to relate to the circumstances of the employment of the members of that class, including such matters as the job they do or the premises in which they work and whether the way in which the union membership agreement as originally defined in the Bill would have prevented a union membership agreement from being made in a way which could have excluded people on grounds of their age, reference to their current union membership, or any grounds of conscientious objection which were agreed between the parties to the membership agreement.
The amendment also meets a further point which has been in question—namely, whether the common characteristics by which a class of employees are identified in a union membership agreement, or the circumstances used to define that class, could be any circumstances or characteristics that those employees happened to have in common, or whether it was the case that to identify the class by characteristics would mean that the characteristics had to be agreed by the parties to the membership agreement and, therefore, included in the agreement.
The amendment makes clear that the characteristics for identifying the class must be agreed between the parties to the membership agreement. As the amendment clarifies where clarification may be required, and makes more flexible the provisions of a membership agreement that can be made between the parties to the agreement, enabling them to accommodate it more nearly to the wishes and desires of those working in the establishment who will be affected by it, I believe

that the amendment should be welcomed by the House, and I accordingly commend it.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: The Minister of State has characteristically explained the amendment clearly and has made it clear that the Opposition had some hand in its being brought on to the statute book. This matter started off with a Government amendment. We were worried about its wording and we put an interpretation upon it which I do not think the Government had thought could be put upon it. However, they realised that the points we were making were fair and redrafting has now taken place. This is a fairly technical matter, as those who have been listening to this short debate will have appreciated. Nevertheless, it is important. We are grateful to those in another place for having made this clarification. I think it right for the House to agree with them.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 3, line 4, at end insert:
and after the word 'belief' there shall be inserted the words 'or reasonable grounds of conscience'.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of the amendment is to provide that it is unfair to dismiss an employee who is not a union member in a closed shop if he objects to membership of any union whatsoever on reasonable grounds of conscience. This is an issue which we have debated many times on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I have been involved in those debates on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, the Employment Protection Bill and during the passage of this Bill.
Although the Government have given some careful consideration to this matter on many occasions as a result of issues raised in the debates to which I have referred, the Government's position has remained consistent. We have taken the view that the statutory qualification as regards the rights of unions and employers to make closed shop agreements is a matter which should be of a very limited nature. We are considering how far the


law should provide an individual with the right to remain outside a union membership agreement on grounds which up to now the Government have resisted and will continue to resist. The question is also raised of the proper rôle of an industrial tribunal in upholding the right of an individual to remain outside a union membership agreement.
4.45 p.m.
As I say, the Government's position on this issue has been fairly consistent, but those who have opposed the matter and have sought to widen the protection of the individual, as they would put it, or, as we would say, to open up grounds for attacking the basic position of the membership union agreement and achieve exclusion from it on individual bases, have produced a number of formulae by which to widen exclusion or exception.
It might be interesting to reflect quickly on some of the formulae we have discussed for widening what is probably best defined as the "conscience clause", In Committee on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act we debated the definition of religious belief, political opinion, the code of conduct of a profession of which an individual is a member and whether an individual has reasonable grounds for refusing membership of a closed shop union. We also debated yet another possible formula involving religious belief or conscience, or, alternatively, political opinion, professional codes of conduct or deeply held personal conviction as amounting to grounds for objecting to joining a specific closed shop union rather than any union whatsoever.
On Report on the 1974 Act we debated not only a repeat of the formula to which I have just referred but another one—namely, reasonable grounds for being a member of a particular trade union. That was the one which was carried. On the Amendment Bill we also discussed a number of possible ways of tackling this matter, including placing in the Bill words to the effect that an employee may object to membership of a union on the ground that his work is different from that of the majority of union members or because he considers membership of a union is likely to hamper the discharge of his duties relating to the dissemination of news. That obviously takes in the position of a news-
paper office, which we may debate at some length at a later stage.
We also debated on Report a much shorter formula—namely, religious belief or conscience regarding membership of any union whatsoever. In another place a number of other formulations have been debated, including substituting conscience for religion or having reasonable grounds in terms of conscience, the formulation that was carried.
It is clear that the House has not only examined the matter in broad principle but has examined very carefully the principle that should be embodied in this legislation. Although there is considerable controversy on the wider exclusions, we start from the position that there is broad agreement on the grounds for excluding the religious objector. We believe that those grounds reflect the importance which the overwhelming majority attach to the right to worship freely and to practise the tenets of an individual's faith. That leads to a tolerance on the ground of religious belief which does not attach to any of the other formulations which would seek to widen exception to the closed shop provision.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Will the Minister of State tell us where we shall find the words "religious belief" defined? How does the law define religious belief?

Mr. Booth: I do not know where we can find the definition of religious belief. I know that the practice of tribunals which I have examined is such as to relate it to the established practice of the members of one particular faith, and normally the members of one particular Church. In practice that is not a matter that has proved a difficulty for the tribunals which have had to deal with these narrow grounds. Tribunals in other circumstances have had to deal with slightly wider grounds, but certainly not on the issue of the closed shop provision in relation to conscience issues.
Therefore, I believe that our previous debates both in Committee and on the Floor of the House have failed to define conscience in a way which is broadly acceptable to hon. Members. The addition which is proposed by the Lords amendment of the word "reasonable" makes the issue no clearer, and I would


argue that it could make it considerably more ambiguous.
If one is judging what are reasonable grounds of conscience there are at least two different approaches that one can take to the matter. If the word "reasonable" was put in, I suppose that a tribunal would have to decide whether this House was of the view that there were two hurdles. The first is that a man had to establish that he was doing it on the basis of conscience. The tribunal would then have to judge whether his ground of conscience was reasonable, which postulates the idea that there are unreasonable and reasonable grounds of conscience. I should not like to be a member of the tribunal that had to take the decision on that basis. I am advised by those who have greater knowledge of the operation of tribunals than I have that it might be viewed in an entirely different way and that "reasonable grounds of conscience" might be thought by tribunals to mean something much wider than "grounds of conscience". That, of course, would be the case if tribunals took the view that conscience, of itself, was a thing which could operate only in very narrow circumstances.
Therefore, I believe that we should create a difficulty if we followed the amendment and gave the tribunal that test to make, as well as having to make up its mind whether we were intending, by attaching the word "reasonable", to qualify or widen what we had previously at least agreed to on the basis of religious grounds.
I wish to make the plea that when we debate the matter we keep a certain perspective. Some of the contributions which have been made in previous debates on this issue have been in terms which suggested that the vote the House took on this issue would determine immediately, almost once and for all, whether people would be in or out of employment in closed shop circumstances. Of course, hon. Members who have studied this issue know that that is not the case. They know that the overwhelming majority of trades unions and employers in this country have traditionally preferred to conduct their collective agreements and bargaining arrangements on a basis other than the closed shop basis and that it is only in about 20 per cent. of cases that

any closed shop arrangements are made. They also know that where these arrangements are made they are normally to cater for particular groups of employees. Therefore, the main determinations which in practice decide whether a person is in or out of a closed shop are those made between unions and employers.
We are dealing with the narrow, but nevertheless important, ground of whether we interfere with the rights of those trade unions and those employers which make these agreements to include a certain category or categories of people.
I take the view that the inclusion of these words in the statute would make the law unclear, render closed shop agreements invalid to an indeterminate extent and render employers liable to pay compensation in circumstances which they could not accurately foresee. It would encourage vexatious complaints from employees who think that they could have a right but would find too late that tribunals think otherwise. Above all, it would create uncertainty and fertile ground for industrial relations difficulties.
We do not argue that there may not be grounds for excluding persons, other than religious believers, from closed shop agreements. However, we believe that we have ensured by the provisions of the legislation that there would be no legal impediments to any such exceptions, but that those exceptions should be worked out and agreed upon by those whose consciences and beliefs are involved, so that a workable basis for toleration is established. If this amendment were carried it would be likely to have the opposite effect. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject it.

Mr. Brittan: It is not surprising, faced with basically so unattractive an argument as the Government are bound to deploy, that so astute a debater as the Minister of State should have felt obliged somewhat inadvertently, no doubt, to distort the consequences of the passage of the amendment.
It simply is not right to say that if this amendment were passed it would interfere with the rights of employers or trade unions to conclude certain types of closed shop agreements. It does not stop employers or trade unions from concluding any kind of closed shop agreement,


however unreasonable it may be, and there may be those behind me who would say "More's the pity". It does not do anything of the kind. It is not an attack or a limitation on the closed shop in any way. It does not give an individual the right to employment or the right to remain in a trade union.
As the Minister of State appreciates, all the amendment does is to prescribe the circumstances in which a person can obtain compensation not from a trade union but from his employer if he is dismissed. It provides that a man shall be entitled to compensation if he is dismissed because he genuinely objects to being a member of a trade union on reasonable grounds of conscience. That is a matter which bites not on the trade unions but on the employers. It is perfectly open for a trade union and an employer, if they so wish, to engage in negotiations which lead to a closed shop agreement with no exceptions or exclusions at all. If the employer does that, and the trade union compels or persuades him to do so, the only person who suffers from the passage of the amendment is the employer.
Therefore, the question is narrower and one in which the rights of the individual are not pitted against the closed shop agreement, but, if anything, are pitted against an employer. We believe that in this situation it is right that the protection of the individual against unfair dismissal or, more strictly speaking, the compensation that he can obtain if he is unfairly dismissed should not be confined to those who object to joining a union purely on grounds of religion. It is surely small-minded, illiberal and insensitive to say, in effect, that only those who object to union membership on grounds of religion should be compensated and that those who object to it on grounds of conscience should not be compensated.
There are two questions that should be asked in considering this matter, and they are the framework within which I suggest we should consider the problem. First, is conscience or conscientious objection of sufficient importance for it to be singled out so that if a person is dismissed because of it he can obtain compensation? Secondly, is conscience a workable test to apply, or is it an unworkable one as the Minister of State would have us believe?

Mr. John Lee: As religious grounds have been accepted for a long time as being an acceptable reason for not being a member of a trade union, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us an example of what might be termed non-religious "reasonable conscience", because these are, as he knows, very imprecise terms.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: I was about to consider whether it was a workable criterion. I thought I was indicating that there were the two tests.
I suggest that conscience, if it exists, is indeed of sufficient importance to be singled out in this way. By definition, "conscience" involves beliefs held not merely on the balance of convenience after mature consideration of competing practicalities, but on the basis of a fundamental belief. I suggest that should be respected.
It seems strange that the Labour Party, which has not been exclusive in its sympathies over the years, should so narrowly confine its sympathies to those who have a religious belief. Many people do not have religious beliefs. None the less, they may sincerely, genuinely and even passionately have beliefs on grounds of what they would regard as conscience.
I come then to the question whether this is a workable test. Is it possible to determine whether a person has a genuine and reasonable belief on grounds of conscience? Before considering that, let me deal with the problem of the word "reasonable". If the only objection by the Government to the amendment passed in another place was the use of the word "reasonable" and if they had no objection to the insertion of the words "on grounds of conscience", it would have been open to them at this late stage in these deliberations to have proposed an amendment deleting the word "reasonable". That would have dealt with the problem in a satisfactory way.
I do not think that the real issue between us is whether "reasonable grounds of conscience" is difficult to determine. The grounds of conscience are not. The real question is whether grounds of conscience are sufficiently important to deserve protection and whether they can be applied. There is a lengthy history of their application in circumstances


which may differ radically in content from the circumstances we are now considering but do not differ in principle.
First, concerning the content of the matter that we are discussing, the words used in the Donovan recommendations on this question are "conscientious objection", not "religious objection". When Donovan was reporting on this matter he certainly thought that "conscientious objection" was the appropriate term and that it was not right to confine it to the narrow ground of religious objection.
Secondly, hon. Gentlemen opposite will perhaps be more familiar than I am with the fact that until recently the Labour Party had a conscience clause, not a religious clause, which enabled or permitted Members to disagree with policy on grounds of conscience, not just on grounds of religion.
Finally, on the history, hon. Members will know the analogy which has been drawn with conscientious objectors in time of war. When this matter was raised in Committee some hon. Gentlemen opposite got heated and said that it was monstrous to compare membership of a trade union with being compelled to fight for one's country. Many of us would agree that there are significant differences between the two. The question is not whether there are differences between the two, but whether the application of the conscientious test is viable. We had a situation where in time of war, when the country was fighting for its life, it was still thought appropriate to have a tribunal before which people could appear and persuade the tribunal, if they could, that they should be exempt from military service, not because they had a religious objection, but on the wider ground that they had a conscientious objection. Thousands of cases were determined in which people had conscientious objections, some of which were not religious in foundation.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite may recall that when we debated this matter on another occasion quotations were made from a book by a gentleman who had been a member of a conscientious objectors' tribunal in which he talked of the differing bases of objection. Some were founded on what could properly be regarded as an organised religion, but others were founded on questions of

conscience. Those tribunals looked into the question whether a person genuinely had a conscientious objection. That is not a particularly novel matter for courts or judicial tribunals of other kinds to consider. Every day courts in this country have to consider whether somebody is being honest, sincere, genuine and telling the truth. Therefore, from the point of view of a conscientious objection to military service, a tribunal, in considering whether a person really held the belief that he claimed was so profound and fundamental, was engaging in a task which was difficult and delicate, but not unique in the operation of normal procedures in judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.

Mr. Lee: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the conscientious objection tribunals were faced with persons who raised objections which could be termed the test of moral acceptability of war. Is not that a different situation from somebody who may conscientiously object to being a member of a trade union because of a purely political objection to trade unions? He might be a supporter of Mr. Edward Martell or somebody like that. Does the hon. Gentleman regard that as a proper ground?

Mr. Brittan: The fact that the hon. Gentleman has drawn that distinction shows that it is possible to draw a distinction between a political and a conscientious objection. If it is possible for the hon. Gentleman to draw that distinction, it is possible for a tribunal to draw it.
I will explain the distinction. The supporters of Mr. Edward Martell would plainly have a political objection. That would, therefore, not be upheld by the tribunal applying this test.
Taking the example given by the hon. Gentleman of somebody who held views on this question, and on this question alone, that would be the same as a man who had been a member of the Plymouth Brethren. Perhaps he disagreed with the sect, perhaps he had cast off his beliefs in many of the principles of the Plymouth Brethren and was no longer a member of that religion, but kept as a residue of his former beliefs a belief in the particular principle that the Plymouth Brethren held. That would be a belief on grounds


of conscience. It would not be a political belief, nor would it be a religious belief. It would be a fundamentally held belief which any person who was committed to principles of individual liberty should surely support. Indeed, it is not only a question of "should support". I suggest that we would be bound to support it because the terms of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is binding on this country, state that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Conscience and religion, as far as that legally binding document is concerned, are not identical. They are similar, equally important, but different rights which ought to be protected. Therefore, if in a legal instrument of that kind the distiction is drawn, it ought to be drawn in this House. Both are equally worthy of protection.
I ask the House to approach this matter, which is not subversive of union membership agreements, but at worst imposes a greater liability on employers, in a more large minded spirit of greater generosity, tolerance and breadth of mind than one which confines the protection to the individual who happens to come within a circumscribed and recognised religious organisation.

Mr. William Small: I intervene for only a few minutes as an ex-convener of shop stewards with practical experience on the shop floor.
When the expression "Plymouth Brethren" was mentioned, I recalled a certain incident. We have entered into the Continental shift system, which means that there is a demand that everybody should work on a Sunday if needed. If, on religious grounds, a man does not want to work on Sunday, what do we do? Let me give a practical illustration. One such case arose, and my tuba-playing colleague John Boyd of the AUEW was asked to intervene. I am a witness, together with the labour officer, the ICI management, and so on. We had Plymouth Brethren and two men who believed in Zen Buddism. It was a question of somebody not wanting to work on Sunday. I listened to John Boyd praying for the soul of someone of a different religion.

I object to the use of the closed shop. There is no such thing. What is needed is a persuasive struggle and the advocacy of shop stewards to get 100 per cent. trade unionism, and not the closed shop, which is the easy way out.
In terms of general practice, is it an unfair dismissal if a man refuses to work in a normal way in a situation where shift work has been accepted which includes working on a Sunday?

Mr. David Madel: In opening the debate on this amendment the Minister of State reminded us that we have gone round this topic again and again both on this Bill and on the Employment Protection Bill, and no doubt we shall find a way of considering it again when that Bill comes back from the other place.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that during the Committee stage in the other place on the Employment Protection Bill the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) about Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not properly answered.
The Government's answer was given by Lord Jacques, who said at column 206 of the Official Report for 23rd September 1975 that he would have preferred this question to have been answered by the noble and learned lord the Lord Chancellor but he, Lord Jacques, would be brave enough to give an opinion. That indicates that the Government are thinking a little more about this and perhaps want more time before giving a definitive opinion on whether what they propose is in collision with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is still time for the Solicitor-General to come to the House today and give an opinion, or to do so later, and I think that we are right to stress that a full answer has not been given to the point about Article 9.
I am sure that in the many debates that we had on this subject the Opposition convinced the Minister that we were not seeking to pave the way for free riders by changing the rules about why someone may not belong to a trade union. I think the Minister is aware that Vauxhall Motors is now in the process of bringing about a 100 per cent. union


shop. A draft agreement is being undertaken which provides that everbody must join a union, but there is a let-out on religious or other reasonable grounds and it says that objectors to joining a union will first face a joint committee of their own plant and that if no agreement is reached each individual case will be heard by Vauxhall's joint negotiating committee.
5.15 p.m.
I repeat that that is not a final agreement, but a draft, but as it has been published in the Press it invites comment when we are discussing this matter. But that which has been agreed appears to indicate that an employee may, after appeal, be allowed not to join a union on reasonable grounds other than religious beliefs, which would indicate a conscientious objection. I stress that there has to be an appeal, and I think that the appeal procedure will be eminently satisfactory.
I ask the Government to wait and see how this agreement works out. Why not give it a year? Let us put in the amendment which their Lordships have suggested and see whether the conscientious ground is fairly applied and whether the unions find such an alteration intolerable. In view of the Government's links with the TUC, I am convinced that if the amendment goes through and the unions find that many people are trying to get by and become free riders the TUC will quickly approach the Government and say that the Bill must be amended. What I am pleading for is some time, because I think that union appeal committees will find it in their hearts to allow people not to belong to a union on other than religious grounds.
What will determine the Government's attitude, and what ought to determine it, are the practical examples from plants and factories such as Vauxhall's as to how the arrangements are being carried out. What we are asking for is time. I am convinced that if in a year's time the Government can produce evidence of a charter for free riders having come about because of the amendment we shall consider the matter again, but in view of the cautious way in which unions and management are proceeding in this matter at Vauxhall's, and in view of the evidence at

other factories, I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment being made to the Bill and see how we go for a year or 18 months and then consider whether it is necessary to make an alteration to what is proposed.

Mr. Stan Throne: The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) referred to conscience and beliefs and was anxious to show that beliefs extended far beyond the range of religious beliefs. I recall a definition given some time ago of ideology. It was defined as a pattern of beliefs. Most of us have an ideological position, which emerges from time to time in this House, based upon a set of beliefs, and it seems to me that, against that kind of background, if we were to pass the amendment it could give rise to an ideological position derived from the acceptance by an employee of an employer's right to exploit an employee and the employee's decision not to join a trade union because of that belief. That would be legitimate, given the view taken by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby, and, therefore, anybody who did not want to join a trade union could argue that he was against doing so on reasonable grounds of conscience.
This is the nub of the whole question, because it is unacceptable to trade unionists that a worker can argue that he will not join a trade union, faced possibly with the continuing struggle against an exploiting employer, on ideological or conscience grounds. That is unacceptable to the majority of trade unionists, and it seems to me that on that basis the House must reject the amendment.

Mr. Tebbit: When the Minister opened the debate he must have forgotten the events of yesterday, and the legislation which this House enacted then, when he criticised their Lordships for producing legislation which would possibly lead to difficulties in its implementation. I should have thought that that was a criticism that might well have come from the other end of the corridor rather than this.
I take the view, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) did, that we should add the conscience clause. Religious belief is far too narrow in the way that it is put into the


Bill, although the definition of "religious" seems to be becoming a little wider. The Oxford Dictionary says that "religious" means
Imbued with religion, exhibiting spiritual or practical effects of religion, pious, God-fearing or devout.
That seems to have gone a bit by the board in the minds of some education authorities which, for example, wish to include instruction in Communism within the time given to religious instruction, so perhaps we are all becoming broad-minded about these things. None the less, we probably think that the religious ground is still a rather narrow one.
My hon. Friend and others have referred to what happened during time of war. I should like to read a very short extract from the official History of the Second World War. In relation to conscientious objection it states:
Objections to taking up arms, it was recognised, might spring from a personal conviction of its wrongfulness, and should not be brushed aside or overruled just because the attitude of mind and the reasoning behind it seemed to those who thought otherwise immature or perverse.
That was the thought in time of war. The quotation continues:
What did matter was the genuiness with which such beliefs were held, and sincerity must be the criterion on which claims for exemption from military service were adjudicated.
That was good enough for many people at a time when this country was facing a possible invasion and being overrun by a foreign invader. Why cannot we be as liberal now as we were then? What is it that the Government really fear about taking as wide a view in 1975 as we were able to do in 1940? According to the Minister, it is that employers would be caught in a vice between the awkward man's conscience and the power of a trade union, and that the employer would suffer. Would that we had heard that argument a few weeks back, when we were worried about the employer caught in the vice between the trade union asking for more than £6 a week and the Government which prohibited the employer giving more than £6 a week. There was no worry then about the employer's unfortunate position. That was hard luck. But today we have the Minister sympathising with the employer. The Minister knows, and we know, that he is taking

this line not to protect employers but to protect unions.
I doubt whether many people outside this House today would think that it is the trade union which requires protection against the individual's conscience. Certainly in the past trade unions required protection, but I do not really believe that the massive power of the trade union movement today requires to be protected against a handful of those who are regarded as the awkward squad in the eyes of the Government and their supporters.
What is the potential size of the problem? None of us can know. Clearly, it would not be a bad idea to let the Bill run in its present form and see what happens, but it is instructive to look back and see what was the size of the problem when the grounds of conscientious objection were drawn as widely as they were during the war.
I looked at the official History of the Second World War to find how many conscientious objectors there were. A total of 59,192 men and women asked for relief as conscientious objectors, and 12,204 were removed from the register of conscientious objectors, so that during the whole of the war only 47,000 were confirmed as conscientious objectors.
Are we to say that there are more people today in Britain who would say that their conscience prohibited them from belonging to a union than there were people 35 years ago who said that their conscience forbade them from taking up arms? If that is so, it is a queer commentary on how people regard unions. Or are we saying that we could not afford to have 45,000 or 50,000 men and women who were granted the right not to belong to a union? Are the unions in need of protection, with their 10 or 11 millions of members, from a mere handful, a few tens of thousands at the most? I do not believe so. If we could afford to exempt 47,000 people in our struggle against the Nazis, surely the unions can afford to go without a few people in their struggle against the employers—if indeed they still see life in terms of a struggle against the employers.
There have recently been many voices coming from the Secretary of State's past, asking him to go back to his previous and rather broader views of the rights of the individual as opposed to the rights of the


establishment. All we can do from this side of the House this evening is to echo those voices and ask him to regain the steel that he used to have in standing for conscience against the establishment, even though the power of the establishment is no longer held by the same people against whom he pitted himself in the past.

Mr. Bidwell: Following the theme of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), I suggest to him and to the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, although I may disagree with him in other respects, has to face the realities of the British industrial scene and industrial relations.
The hon. Member for Chingford was, I believe, an airline pilot. I assume that he belonged to his appropriate trade union, and (hat he did not think very much of those who were not in their appropriate trade unions, and who enjoyed for nothing all the advantages and the benefits of the very fine trade union of which he was a member. I do not know what feelings were engendered by such people, or whether that union has any "nons". Perhaps airline pilots are too intelligent to have a situation in which there are non-unionists.
We have to consider the background and the realities of the British industrial scene, and we cannot go by the industrial experiences of other countries. That is where the previous administration slipped up, in trying to borrow from the United States.

Mr. Tebbit: Let me make it plain to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and to the House that I was a member of my union. Indeed, I was a shop steward—although we did not use such terms in BALPA—for my union. I believed in 100 per cent. membership. I worked for 100 per cent. membership. I would always do so. I also maintained that the day anybody declared a closed shop I would resign from the union, because I respected the right of conscience, and I would rather have a few free loaders, in the interests of conscience, than make the mistake the other way.

Mr. Bidwell: That was a very long intervention, and I join issue with the hon. Gentleman and with other hon. Members

opposite on the question of conscience. I do not know what has taken place in Committee, and I have not followed very closely the arguments made there on both sides. The hon. Gentleman has attempted to make a comparison in particular with the facilities for conscientious objection during the course of war. It was not a question whether one was to be conscripted to fight, but whether one was to be conscripted to die, so there is not an exact parallel. But, even in regard to the substance of what he was saying earlier, the tribunals did not only determine whether or not one had to go into the armed forces. The tribunals determined what one did if one was not in the armed forces. It does not, therefore, fall within the realms of an exact parallel, which is what the hon. Gentleman leading for the Opposition has tried to make out. There is just no comparison at all between the two situations of the emergencies of the war and the normal decent requirements of the British industrial scene.
I imagine that the hon. Member for Chingford, as a representative of his fellow workers, would not have thought very much of a non-unionist who took all the benefits without contributing to the funds of the union and to what is necessary in order to build trade unionism.
5.30 p.m.
Apart from the pre-entry closed shop, apart from the print industry where union control of the supply of labour produces what is perhaps the closed shop par excellence, that situation does not prevail in industry generally. The trade union movement has always aimed to achieve 100 per cent. unionism by the efforts of the workers. Here we are not considering normal practices, however. We are considering, instead, how the law should be fitted into normal practices and the normal mood of tolerance in the trade union movement.
I know a great deal about this matter because before I came to this House I was a tutor and organiser with the National Council of Labour Colleges, and for two years I was London regional education officer of the TUC. I was a school director at summer schools which brought together trade unionists from all sections of the movement. I know, therefore, the true spirit that exists in the


movement. When the London bus workers achieved almost 100 per cent. trade union membership they were prepared to tolerate the genuine non-unionist who had a religious objection to membership. Whether or not the law is applied, therefore, the organised workers in genuine free trade unionism—not in company trade unionism—will continue to display that attitude and approach.
Trade unionism will grow in Britain and the workers will continue to adopt the traditional practice of tolerating the odd man out who for genuine religious reasons cannot join a union. However, law or no law, they will not tolerate the fly-by-night, the blood-sucker who will not pay his whack. The Opposition should not waste the time of the House but should instead learn to face up to the realities of industry.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I agree that a great deal of time has been wasted on this matter, but that has not been all on one side of the House.
As I understand it, the clause has nothing to do with whether a man should belong to a union or should refuse to belong on grounds of reasonable conscience, and I wish that some hon. Members had understood that fact. The argument is quite simple. It is whether, if in a closed shop situation an employee decides, on grounds of reasonable conscience, that he will not belong to a union and the employer dismisses him, he can sue the employer on grounds of wrongful dismissal. All the arguments about whether a man should be made to join a union are irrelevant to the debate. The question is whether he should have the right to sue his employer for unfair dismissal.

Mr. Booth: I must concede the point raised by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) that the strict legal effect of this clause bears only on whether a person dismissed in a certain situation has the right to unfair dismissal compensation. The whole of the debate on the issue of the closed shop which arose from the original Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 hung upon the influence which such a provision would have on the formation of closed shops. The contention was that we have so amended the unfair dismissal provisions in order to take account of the closed shop that we risk biasing the law

in favour of those who seek to make closed shops, and it was argued that what we have done is not even-handed.
Our argument was that it was absolutely impossible to marry the legal existence of a closed shop with unfair dismissal legislation which would give anyone dismissed for refusing to comply with conditions of a union membership agreement the right to sue his employer for unfair dismissal. We may have had differing formulations about how the right to unfair dismissal may run. That was where the whole thing started. However, whatever degree of exemption one believes there should be, one must accede to the view that the employer is entitled to say that he would not complete a union membership agreement with a union in circumstances where by doing so he considered himself liable to a considerable amount of unfair dismissal compensation.
Most trade unionists recognise that fact, and that is why those few recent discussions which have taken place on whether closed shop agreements should be made or not have reflected this consideration. In the narrow area where that has happened there has been something of a moratorium on the discussion. Now, however, the argument is being based on a whole number of different grounds as well. It is being contended that by having a closed shop we are in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention. That has been suggested in this debate—

Mr. Brittan: By whom?

Mr. Booth: That was my understanding of one of the references—not, I accept, by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby, because he used that reference to show that the law can distinguish between religion and conscience. My recollection, however, is that it has been held that the closed shop should be regarded as illegal on the ground I have described. However, it can in no way be held that the closed shop conflicts with the rights that exist by virtue of Article 9. A person is free to take the view that he need not join a trade union in order to continue to work. There are millions of non-trade unionists who work in this country in firms which are organised, where unions are recognised. We are not arguing the contention, therefore, that


a non-unionist does not have the right to work. We are arguing on the very narrow ground of the extent to which reasonable grounds of conscience to object to a trade union should affect a person's right to unfair dismissal compensation, and the effect of that situation on the formation of closed shop agreements.
The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) suggested that I have argued that trade unions require protection in this matter. That is not the way I face the issue. I do not argue the issue on the grounds of trade unionists requiring protection. What I argue is that the tolerance traditionally shown in this country and the respect that the majority of unionists and employers have for the objections of individuals, which have resulted in the overwhelming majority of places where unions organise not pursuing a closed shop policy, can work fully only if the law leaves open to them the possibility of giving the widest possible range of union membership arrangements.
If we take that away by determining in an Act of Parliament that people must receive unfair dismissal compensation if certain forms of agreement are made, the legislation must have an influence. The decision will not be completely free. This matter is worked out in practice most satisfactorily by the union membership agreements which are made in this situation, and to widen the grounds of unfair dismissal compensation must logically influence far more the position of employers as well as unionists in recognising unions and determining how to recognise them. Those who realise the good practice and good sense and tolerance which prevail in industry will reject the amendment.

Mr. Brittan: With permission, I should like to answer what the Minister of State has said. It may do him little harm in this debate, but it is profoundly subversive of the Government's position in matters that we shall discuss later. He argued up hill and down dale, usually down dale, in Committee that the Government's policy towards the closed shop was neutral. Now he tells us that by the wording of these provisions they seek to influence the formation of the closed

shop. If that is so, their attitude cannot be called neutral.
There is all the distinction in the world between influencing the formation of the closed shop in this respect and the more general question of influencing the categories of people to be included or excluded—particularly journalists. Employers will be affected by the question whether they have to pay compensation and whether or not they form a union membership agreement.
If one is talking about large groups of people, employers are seriously at risk if they have to pay compensation for dismissing people who have refused to join a union. When we are talking about a tiny number of people, as we should be in the case of those who object on grounds of conscience, employers will not be so influenced. It is open for a union, if it feels that it must, to press for a union membership agreement with no exceptions. If that happened, the employer would bear the brunt of the proposals that we are seeking to support and would have to pay compensation for people who have been dismissed for refusing on grounds of conscience. That is why it is a fair distinction to make and one which we support.
This is not an attack on the closed shop but an extension of the rights of the individual on grounds of conscience. It is significant that in considering the points so powerfully made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) and others, the Minister of State has not dealt with the fundamental question why conscience cannot be distinguished.
It can be distinguished. The Minister's point about the European Convention is a complete red herring. He conceded when I intervened that I at least was using that example only to show that international legal instruments accepted that a distinction of legally binding quality and validity could properly be made between conscience and religion.
That is what we seek to do. We remain unpersuaded that their Lordships got it wrong. I would seek to persuade my hon. Friends to support what their Lordships have done.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 254.

Division No. 336.]
AYES
[4.27 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Allaun, Frank
Buchan, Norman
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davidson, Arthur


Archer, Peter
Campbell, Ian
Davies, Bryan (Enfleld N)


Armstrong, Ernest
Canavan, Dennis
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashley, Jack
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Carmichael Neil
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Atkinson. Norman
Carter, Ray
Deakins, Eric


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cartwright, John
Delargy, Hugh


Bates, Alf
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Clemitson, Ivor
Dempsey, James


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Doig, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Cohen, Stanley
Dormand, J. D.


Bishop, E. S.
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Concannon, J. D.
Duffy, A. E. P.


Boardman, H.
Conlan, Bernard
Dunn, James A.


Booth, Albert
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Eadie, Alex


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Corbett, Robin
Edelman, Maurice


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Edge, Geoff


Bradley, Tom
Crawshaw, Richard
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cronin, John
English, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Ennals, David


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cryor, Bob
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)




Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Luard, Evan
Roper, John


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Rose, Paul B.


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Rowlands, Ted


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McCartney, Hugh
Ryman, John


Flannery, Martin
MacCormick, Iain
Sandelson, Reville


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McElhone, Frank
Sedgemore, Brian


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Ford, Ben
Mackintosh, John P.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McNamara, Kevin
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Madden, Max
Sillars, James


Ginsburg, David
Magee, Bryan
Silverman, Julius


Gould, Bryan
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Skinner, Dennis


Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Simon
Small, William


Graham, Ted
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth
Snape, Peter


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marquand, David
Spearing, Nigel


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stallard, A. W.


Hardy, Peter
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Harper, Joseph
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stott, Roger


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Meacher, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hatton, Frank
Millan, Bruce
Swain, Thomas


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Henderson, Douglas
Moonman, Eric
Thompson, George


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tierney, Sydney


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Huckfield, Les
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Tomlinson, John


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tomney, Frank


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Newens, Stanley
Tuck, Raphael


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noble, Mike
Urwin, T. W.


Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Irvine. Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
O'Halloran, Michael
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Orbach, Maurice
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Janner, Greville
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Ward, Michael


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ovenden, John
Watkins, David


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Owen, Dr David
Watkinson, John


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Padley, Walter
Weetch, Ken


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Palmer, Arthur
Weitzman, David


John, Brynmor
Park, George
Wellbeloved, James


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parker, John
Welsh, Andrew


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Parry, Robert
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Pavitt, Laurie
White, James (Pollok)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Whitehead, Phillip


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pendry, Tom
Whitlock, William


Judd, Frank
Perry, Ernest
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Kaufman, Gerald
Phipps, Dr Colin
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Kelley, Richard
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Kinnock, Neil
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lambie, David
Radice, Giles
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Lamborn, Harry
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Lamond, James
Reid, George
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Woof, Robert


Lee, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roderick, Caerwyn
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Lipton, Marcus
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Litterick, Tom
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Mr. David Stoddarl.


Lomas, Kenneth
Rooker, J. W.



Loyden, Eddie






NOES


Adley, Robert
Bell, Ronald
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Alison, Michael
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Brittan, Leon


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Berry, Hon Anthony
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Arnold, Tom
Biffen, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Biggs-Davison, John
Bryan, Sir Paul


Awdry, Daniel
Blaker, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Baker, Kenneth
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Budgen, Nick


Banks Robert
Bottomley, Peter
Bulmer, Esmond


Beith, A. J.
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Burden, F. A.







Carlisle Mark
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hurd, Douglas
Price, David (Eastlelgh)


Channon, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Churchill, W. S.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Raison, Timothy


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rathbone, Tim


Clark, William (Croydon S)
James, David
Rees, Peter (Dover a Deal)


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cockcroft, John
Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinsiead)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cope, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rifkind Malcolm


Cordle, John H.
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Costain, A. P.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
Kershaw, Anthony
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Crouch, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutslord)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Knox, David
Sainsbury, Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Drayson, Burnaby
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Durant, Tony
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin


Elliott, Sir William
Lawson, Nigel
Shersby, Michael


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lester Jim (Beeston)
Silvester, Fred


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sims, Roger


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George


Fairgrieve, Russell
Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Farr, John
Luce, Richard
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fell, Anthony
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
MacGregor, John
Sproat, Iain


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stainton, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fox, Marcus
Madel, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stokes, John


Freud, Clement
Marten, Neil
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fry, Peter
Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mather, Carol
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Tebbit, Norman


Gilmour, Sir John (East File)
Mawby, Ray
Temple-Morris, Peter


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mayhew, Patrick
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Goodharl, Philip
Mills, Peter
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Goodlad, Alastair
Moate, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Molyneaux, James
Tugendhat, Christopher


Grant Anthony (Harrow C)
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R


Gray, Hamish
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Grimond. Rt Hon J.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Viggers, Peter


Grist, Ian
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wakeham. John


Grylls, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hall, Sir John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wall, Patrick


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Walters, Dennis


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David
Warren, Kenneth


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neave, Atrey
Weatherill, Bernard


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony
Wells, John


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neubert, Michael
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Newton, Tony
Wiggin, Jerry


Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Havers, Sir Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas


Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, John (Harrow West)



Heseltine, Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hicks, Robert
Pardoe, John
Mr. Cecil Parkinson and


Higgins, Terence L.
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. William Benyon.


Hordern, Peter
Penhaligon, David

Division No. 337.]
AYES
[5.46 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert


Allaun, Frank
Flannery, Martin
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, Kevin


Archer, Peter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Madden, Max


Armstrong, Ernest
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Magee, Bryan


Ashley, Jack
Ford, Ben
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon


Atkinson, Norman
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marks, Kenneth


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David


Bates, Alf
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Bean, R. E.
George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Gould, Bryan
Maynard, Miss Joan


Bidwell, Sydney
Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Graham, Ted
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mikardo, Ian


Boardman, H.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Millan, Bruce


Booth, Albert
Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hardy, Peter
Molloy, William


Bradley, Tom
Harper, Joseph
Moonman, Eric


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hatton, Frank
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Buchan, Norman
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Newens, Stanley


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Heffer, Eric S.
Noble, Mike


Campbell, Ian
Henderson, Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Canavan, Dennis
Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric


Cant, R. B.
Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Carter, Ray
Huckfield, Les
Orbach, Maurice


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)
Ovenden, John


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Dr David


Clemitson, Ivor
Hunter, Adam
Padley, Walter


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Palmer, Arthur


Cohen, Stanley
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Park, George


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Parker, John


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Greville
Parry, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Corbett, Robin
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cronin. John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Radice, Giles


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reid, George


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Judd, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kinnock, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lambie, David
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Deakins, Eric
Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.


Delargy, Hugh
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Roper, John


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Rose, Paul B.


Dempsey, James
Lee, John
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rowlands, Ted


Dormand, J. D.
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Ryman, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Sandelson, Neville


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sedgemore, Brian


Dunn, James A.
Lipton, Marcus
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dunnett, Jack
Litterick, Tom
 Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth 
 Shore, Rt Hon Peter 


Edelman, Maurice
Loyden, Eddie
 Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) 


Edge, Geoff
 Luard, Evan 
 Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) 


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
 Lyon, Alexander (York) 
 Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) 


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
 Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) 
 Sillars, James 


English, Michael
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson 
Silverman, Julius 


Ennals, David
MacCormick, Iain
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
 McElhone, Frank 
 Small, William 


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
MacFarquhar, Roderick 
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) 


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McGuire, Michael(Ince)
Snape, Peter


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mackintosh, John P. 
Spearing, Nigel 


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 3, line 9, at end insert—
( ) After Schedule 4 to the principal Act there shall be inserted the following Schedule—

SCHEDULE 4A

REFERENCES TO SECRETARY OF STATE REGARDING UNION MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENTS

1. Where a union membership agreement has been made as defined in section 30 of this Act and any independent trade union, being neither a party to the agreement nor specified for the purposes of or in relation to the agreement, claims that it should reasonably have been so specified, then the independent trade union may refer the matter to the Secretary of State in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this Schedule.
2. Upon a reference to the Secretary of State under the preceding paragraph then—

(a) the union membership agreement shall cease to be effective in relation to any employee who is for the time being in membership of the independent trade union which referred the matter to the Secretary of State until the conclusion of the proceedings on the reference; and
(b) the Secretary of State may after consulting with the parties thereto vary the terms of the union membership agreement and may also specify for the purposes of or in relation to the agreement the independent trade union who referred the matter to him.

3. The Secretary of State may make regulations governing the procedure to be followed on a reference to him under this Schedule and such regulations may contain such supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.
4. Regulations made under this Schedule may provide for the Secretary of State to refer the matter in dispute or any part thereof to any person or body appointed under any other enactment dealing with industrial relations whether passed before or after this Act on such terms as the Secretary of State considers

necessary or expedient and before exercising any power in paragraph 2(b) hereof the Secretary of State shall consider the report of the person or body to whom the matter was so referred.""

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment repeats in substance an amendment moved by the Opposition in Committee. At that stage I expressed some sympathy with the aims of the amendment, but rejected it on the grounds that it would create serious practical difficulties and also because I thought at that time that the real problem to which the amendment was addressed could be solved by an amendment to the Employment Protection Bill, rather than along the lines suggested in the amendment at that time.
The amendment arises from fears that some small, independent unions, particularly in local government, might not be specified in union membership agreements and their members might, therefore, be pressed to join a specified union within the membership agreement. The amendment would enable such unions to appeal to the Secretary of State asking him to vary the terms of the union membership agreement.
6.0 p.m.
The union membership agreement under the procedure outlined in the amendment would cease to have effect while the Secretary of State was considering such an application. We are opposed to this way of dealing with the problem because it would enable unrecognised splinter unions to make complaints against membership agreements, appeal to the Secretary of State


and prevent those union membership agreements from operating while consideration was being given to their complaint or application.
This is even more serious than it seems because such unions could do this without having to establish in any way that they were seeking the right to recognition. I hope that I am not stretching the terms of the debate in Committee when I say that the Opposition spoke fairly as if they were concerned about unions that would normally have a right to establish recognition for their members and would intend to do so. This amendment, as it was presented in Committee and as it is now presented, is a useful vehicle for the discussion of the issue. But our real concern is with the position of unions that properly seek recognition on behalf of their members.
We have discussed this matter with a number of the small professional unions affected. We have examined their views and considered in the light of them the difficulty that could arise if this amendment were carried. Problems might arise in a way which would conflict with the recognition provisions of the Employment Protection Bill. We have met this by amending the Employment Protection Bill to safeguard those unions recognised under the Bill's recognition procedure or those seeking recognition under it. This is achieved by deeming a union recognition, or, a union having applied for recognition to ACAS, for it then to be specified in a union membership agreement for the purpose of any unfair dismissal proceedings.
If ACAS recommends recognition the protection automatically continues while the recognition stands. There are provisions in the Employment Protection Bill for the variation of recognition. If ACAS does not recommend recognition the protection ceases. By this means of dealing with the problem there will be no conflict between this safeguard and the recognition responsibilities which will rest on ACAS. This method of dealing with the problem meets the substance of the Lords amendment without breaching collective bargaining arrangements or conflicting with the rôle of ACAS in determining recognition issues. I hope that in asking the House to disagree with the Lords it will be understood that it is

not because we take the view that the amendment does not address itself to a problem. It is because we feel that we have been able to solve the problem in another and more effective manner

Mr. Hayhoe: When we discussed a similar amendment earlier in our proceedings it was clear that the Government took the view that something should be done at least to deal with that part of the point being raised which concerned the fears of some small unions over their negotiating rights. They were fearful that if a union membership agreement was negotiated their rights might be overturned in the process. We saw something of this in the Press comment from some of the small craft unions involved in the current negotiations for a union membership agreement at Chryslers. I am delighted that their fears were unfounded and that proper regard is being taken of their position in the draft membership agreements now being discussed.
When the Lords made this amendment they were right to push their views to a vote. As the Minister of State said, however, the amendments which have now been moved and agreed in another place go a long way towards covering the points at issue and devising a procedure whereby the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service will have a rôle to play. These amendments also go a long way, if not all the way, to alleviating the fears held by some.
In this debate it is right that we should express the fears of some of the small professional unions which are worried that they may be eaten up by the great blue-collar unions in a closed shop situation. That is a justifiable fear. The changes made to the Employment Protection Bill will help to meet that fear. It is a good thing that the changes have been made. I believe that if the Lords have a chance to reconsider this amendment they may not, as a result of the decisions made concerning the Employment Protection Bill, wish to pursue the matter. At any rate, that is now a matter for another place so long as we do not agree with the amendment. It seems right that the Lords should have that second chance.
Not all fears will be alleviated following the changes in the Employment Protection Bill. I note that UKAPE


is worried about what happened in the water supply industry. It feels that proper regard has not been paid to its position there. Some of the professional staff in local government will feel that the amendments made meet their fears. The Bridlington and Croydon agreements have often been put forward as the magic answer to this sort of problem. They have been blown sky-high by the speech made by a former deputy leader of the Labour Party during the passage of this Bill through the Lords. His speech rather lifted the curtain on how the big boys operate under Bridlington.
We should not be too sanguine about the difficulties that can occur. Members


New Clause B


FREEDOM OF THE PRESS


Lords Amendment: No. 7, after Clause 2, in page 3, line 9, at end insert—


"B. After section 1 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section:—" Charter on freedom of the press—



1A.—(1) If, before the end of the period of six



months beginning with the passing of the Trade


5
Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1975,



there is agreed among parties including employers of



journalists, or employers' associations representing



such employers, editors or editors' organisations, and



trade unions representing journalists, a charter containing


10
rules of conduct for employers, trade unions,



editors and other journalists on matters relating to



the freedom of the press, the Secretary of State shall



lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of that



charter.


15
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above,



matters relating to the freedom of the press include



(a) the rights of editors and other persons



exercising editorial responsibilities to discharge



their duties free from any obligation


20
to join a trade union;



(b) the rights of journalists to join a trade union



of their choice;



(c) the rights of editors to commission, publish



or not to publish any article free from


25
pressure by industrial action;



(d) the rights of journalists not to be arbitrarily



or unreasonably excluded or expelled from



membership of a trade union.



(3) If no such charter has been agreed as mentioned


30
in subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall,



after consultation with the Press Council and such



of the parties referred to in that subsection, such



organisations representing workers, and such organisations



representing employers, as he thinks fit,


35
prepare in draft a charter containing rules of conduct



designed to secure the rights mentioned in subsection



(2) above together with such other matters as may



have been agreed among the parties mentioned in



subsection (1) hereof, and shall lay a draft before


40
both Houses of Parliament.



(4) If a draft laid under subsection (1) or (3) above



is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament



the Secretary of State shall issue the charter



in the form of the draft.


45
(5) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection



(1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in



accordance with subsection (3) above, may be revised



from time to time by agreement between such parties


of unions can sometimes be treated as a parcel in bargaining between one union and another. Their rights are not always fully taken into account. The procedure being built into the Employment Protection Bill on this narrow issue of recognition will help even in that situation. Accordingly, I welcome it. In giving that welcome I must say that of necessity it means that we must not push support for the Lords. We should allow them to reflect on the matter in the light of the changes that have been made to the Employment Protection Bill. We shall not, therefore, seek to dissent from the Minister of State's proposition.

Question put and agreed to.

as are referred to in subsection (1) above, and the


50
Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the revised



charter before both Houses of Parliament.



(6) If a draft laid under subsection (5) above is



approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.



the Secretary of State shall issue the revised charter


55
in the form of the draft.



(7) On issuing a charter or revised charter under



subsection (4) or (6) above the Secretary of State shall



make by statutory instrument an order specifying the



date on which the charter or revised charter is to


60
come into effect.



(8) No criminal proceedings shall lie against any



person on account of a contravention of the charter



but the obligation to comply with the charter is a



duty owed to any person who may be affected by a


65
contravention of it and any breach of that duty by



industrial action or otherwise is actionable accordingly



subject to the defences and other incidents



applying to actions for breach of statutory duty.



(9) In this section—


70
"article" means any matter printed or intended



for printing or broadcast or intended for



broadcasting by television or radio:



"industrial action" means—



(a) a concerted stoppage of work by a


75
group of workers, whether (in the case of



all or any of those workers) the stoppage



is or is not in breach of their terms and



conditions of employment and whether it



is carried on during or on the termination


80
of their employment, or



(b) any concerted course of conduct



which—



(i) is carried on by a group of



workers with the intention of


85
preventing, reducing or otherwise



interfering with the production



of goods or the



provision of services, and



(ii) in the case of some or all of


90
them, is carried on in breach of



their contracts of employment



or (where they are not employees)



in breach of their terms



and conditions of service.""

Read a Second time.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 3, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I shall explain to the House the procedure it is proposed that we shall follow.

'such matters as the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment, or criticism, the application of union membership agreements to journalists (and in particular the position of editors) and the question of access for contributors.'.

together with sub-amendments (a), in line 3, leave out
'position of editors) and the question of access for contributors'
and insert:
'right of editors to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union)

First, there will be a debate on the amendment in line 3, followed by the main block debate on the amendment in line 10, leave out 'rules of conduct' and insert 'practical guidance'.

With that we shall take the amendment in line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 and insert:

and the right of editors to commission and publish any article'.

and (b), in line 3, leave out 'position of editors)' and insert:
'right of editors to discharge their duties and to commission and pubish any article)'.

and the amendments, in line 35, leave out from 'containing' to 'and' in line 39 and insert:

'( ) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a charter



which is for the time being in force under this section shall not of itself render him



liable to any proceedings, but in any proceedings for breach of contract in any



court between a journalist and his employer or between a member of a trade union


5
representing journalists and that trade union, or in any proceedings before an



industrial tribunal under Schedule 1 to this Act or section 45 of the Employment



Protection Act 1975



(a) any such charter shall be admissible in evidence, and



(b) any provision of such a charter which appears to the court or tribunal to be


10
relevant to any question arising in those proceedings shall be taken into



account by the court or tribunal in determining that question.'.

and sub-amendment (a), in line 3, leave out from second 'proceedings 'to end of line 7.

There will be a separate debate on line 40, at end insert:
'( ) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall define its field of operation.'.

If the House wishes, there will be a debate on whether the House agrees or disagrees with the proposed amendments.

Mr. Foot: We are grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Officers of the House for that guidance about the way in which we should deal with this complicated series of amendments proposed to Lords amendments. I am sure that what you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, propose will be of general assistance to the House.
Perhaps I could underline what you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said about the immediate debate on the amendment to line 3. Under your procedure the amendment in line 3 will be moved, debated and decided.
It is true that this amendment, which deals with the question of the Press, has attracted some notice in various quarters of the House and may lead to some later discussion. However, the major debate on that subject can much more conveniently take place when we come to the next amendment, in line 10, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have suggested. I hope that the House will be prepared—I do not say not to agree without debate—not to have the main debate on this preliminary matter, to avoid duplication.
The question whether there should be a charter, the form it should take, and its status, I should have thought would have arisen within the next amendment rather

'such practical guidance as is referred to in that subsection'.

and in line 61, leave out subsections (8) and (9) and insert:

than this one, which is solely concerned with increasing the period during which there shall be an opportunity for the charter to be devised by the parties concerned from six months to 12 months to allow the parties in the industry 12 months rather than six to draw up a charter.

The point of this amendment is to give the industry more chance to resolve internal differences and to draw up a charter, and thus to lessen the likelihood of the Secretary of State's having to intervene. There has been some criticism. This point may emerge in the later debate on the question whether there should be any arrangement for the Secretary of State to intervene in any circumstances whatsoever. I understand the argument, but I do not believe it is right that we should have that main argument on this amendment. This amendment aims to reduce the likelihood of any involvement of the Secretary of State by ensuring that the parties have a longer time in which to reach their agreement.

Even if the Secretary of State had to intervene after a year he would still have to consult the two sides of industry. He would be in the position, not formally, perhaps, of some form of arbitrator on disputed points rather than in the position of drawing up his own code—that is, if the parties had come near to reaching agreement, as we might hope they would. But whoever produces the code or charter, it must be acceptable to Parliament. That is the essential safeguard. If the Secretary of State were not able to intervene after the extended period the result might be that no charter will be devised.

It is part of our argument that the Government think that the charter is a better way of dealing with these matters

than by legal intervention. That issue will arise in our later discussions.

I hope that the House will be prepared to accept the amendment. It does not prejudice our later discussions. Further arguments will be put forward. This is merely saying that if there is to be a charter, the House must still decide whether that will be the case and what form it will take, and, if there is a charter, whether the intervention of the Secretary of State should take place after 12 rather than six months.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Hayhoe: I think that the House would be wise, and that it would be for the convenience of hon. Members in all parts of the House, to accept the Secretary of State's advice and to take this amendment, as he sugested, without prejudice to the discussion that follows. It means that we shall have a proper debate on the important broad issues involved in this matter. I therefore commend his advice to the House.

Mr. Foot: I am sure that the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has accepted my suggestion is a good augury for the way in which the rest of the proceedings will be conducted. I am therefore hopeful that as a result of the reasoned attitude which has prevailed in those quarters so readily in the past few minutes we shall make excellent progress.

Amendment to the Lords amendment agreed to.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move as an amendment to the Lords Amendment in line 10, leave out 'rules of conduct' and insert 'practical guidance'.
This amendment may not appear to be a revolutionary proposition. A number of amendments were moved by some of my hon. Friends and others to this proposition and to the other propositions included in our general proposals for amendments to Lords Amendment No. 7.
The discussion raises the central questions of principle which have been debated fully in the country and the House for a number of months.
Perhaps I might indicate the way in which I should like to present my first remarks. There may be some remarks to reply to later. However, I should like

to set out the reasons why the Government disagree with the House of Lords in its propositions, or the so-called "Goodman" amendments. I shall indicate how the Government think that we should deal with these matters and the Government's attitude to the amendments put down by my hon. Friends. In my first speech I shall indicate our attitude towards them, with this reservation. I shall listen to the case put by my hon. Friends on each of the amendments. I am open to persuasion on the different amendments. We have made no final decisions about them. I hope that my preliminary remarks about the amendments will assist in the discussion. However, as I promised, I shall not make any decisions as to what attitude we should take about their amendments until they have presented their case in the way they wish. First, I shall make a few comments which will possibly assist the debate. I shall come to their amendments later on.
I should like to make one or two other general declarations so that nobody else nips in to make them for me.
First, I should like to declare my interest. I have declared it before but it is only proper that I should underline it. I have been a member of the National Union of Journalists for 40 years. That makes me obviously strongly prejudiced in favour of freedom, and especially the freedom of the Press. In that sense I have approached this controversy throughout. I repudiate any suggestion that the Government, myself or my hon. Friends who are associated with me in the Department of Employment have in any sense approached this matter in an attempt to undermine or injure the freedom of the Press. Indeed, the very opposite.
I believe that if the country and Parliament accept our advice genuine freedom of the Press can be strengthened. That has been our purpose. If the charter we envisage is brought into operation with the support of different parts of the industry, so far from freedom of the Press having been injured, there will be support for freedom of the Press, and those who must operate it, of a stronger nature than we have had before. I repudiate entirely the suggestion that the Bill in any way threatens or is intended to threaten the freedom of the Press.


Having said that, it would be absurd for me, having listened to the arguments in Parliament, from editors and all those who have engaged in the controversy, to dismiss their arguments as having been brought forward for factitious or reprehensible motives. I certainly do not say that. I believe that overwhelmingly those who have engaged in the controversy against what we are proposing are also actuated by what they gauge to be the interests of the freedom of the Press.
I have known Lord Goodman for many years in other connections. He has shown a special interest in this subject. He has associations with the Press, through the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, the editors and various other bodies in the newspaper world. But I am sure that his passionate interest in this subject is not derived from any of those associations. I am sure that it derives from a genuine belief that something wrong is being done which he wishes to resist. I have never questioned his good faith.
It is on that basis that I seek to refute what Lord Goodman claims, because it is of great importance that the argument should be properly presented. In many cases, the argument, particularly in some of the newspapers which themselves have an interest in the matter, has not been as wisely and rightly put as it might have been. Let us approach the argument, therefore, on a proper presentation.
I shall not cover the whole ground, for it is familiar to the House. I will merely give a brief retrospect of the background. I shall then underline the reason why the Government regard the Goodman amendments as being imposible for us to accept—indeed, impossible for any Government to accept if they are concerned about the proper management of industrial relations.
Some people have said that the cause of the trouble is the passionate interest I have in the closed shop. I am not a passionate supporter of the closed shop at all. I was a passionate opponent of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I thought it was very foolish, under that Act, to try to impose upon industry generally the idea that closed shops could be banned. That is not to say that I am in favour of closed shops in particular instances. I think that people should be able to choose. I am opposed

to the idea that Parliament can think it wise to lay down rigid rules against closed shops. So far from that assisting the people who want to achieve such an object, there is the opposite result, as experience of the Industrial Relations Act reveals.
My interest is not a passionate interest in closed shops but that we should put behind us the whole of the unhappy, miserable episode of the 1971 Act. What is being proposed to us in this context is that the Government should retain in the newspaper industry, or at any rate one section of it—the NUJ—and keep applying to it, the kind of provisions applied to industry generally by the 1971 Act, which have now been removed. That is why I am so opposed to the prescriptions from some quarters to deal with these matters.
It was natural, when controversy arose over the matter, that concern should be expressed about the way in which closed shops or union membership agreements might operate within the newspaper industry once the repeal of the 1971 Act made closed shops legal once again. It is natural that such questions should have been raised. We did our best, in a series of approaches, to ensure that the union membership agreements under our legislation should be as liberal and tolerant and varied as could be arranged. I do not believe that any hon. Member who sat through the discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee on this Bill would deny that the Government have sought in every sensible way they could to make the definition of union membership agreements the best that the country could have in order to assist in our industrial relations.
I understand also that people might ask, "Are there not special problems associated with the Press with which we should deal in some way or the other? Are there not special fears about closed shops in the journalistic trade?" From such people, proposals came for some form of legislation for dealing with the matter, and this is what we are presented with in the so-called Goodman amendments.
But the more the Government looked at it, the more they came to the conclusion that it would be most unwise in the newspaper industry, as elsewhere,


to try to solve this problem by resort to the law. It was out of that kind of discussion that the proposal for a charter arose—that is to say, instead of Parliament laying down the law as to how to settle these intricate problems, the industry itself should settle them. An initiative in that respect was taken by the NUJ, greatly encouraged by us in the House of Commons, going back to and including the discussion we had on Second Reading—which seems like an epoch ago.
We encouraged these proposals towards a charter as much as we could. I shall not go into details of what happened subsequently, because most hon. Members are aware of it, but at least, as a result of the discussions in this House and the work by the NUJ for the establishment of some kind of charter, the failure of that first initiative was at any rate postponed.
In the House of Lords, my noble Friend Lord Houghton applied his ingenious mind to the problem and proposed a charter or code—"charter" is the better word—which could be incorporated in any legislation for legal enactment with no powers of enforcement, such as the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is drawing up in other sectors, and which could be of assistance in dealing with these matters. This would not be a charter laid down by Parliament, but the parties concerned would have the encouragement of Parliament to go ahead with it. That proposal by Lord Houghton was thrown out or overborne by the amendments moved by Lord Goodman, which said, in effect, that such a charter without powers of enforcement was quite insufficient.
I want to indicate to the House some of the legal reasons—although they touch on other aspects, including political matters—why the Government think that Lord Goodman's amendments are so defective, quite apart even from the main principle. The Government have a number of objections to subsection (8) and subsection (9) of Lords Amendment No. 7 which I must emphasise. These subsections would be deleted if our amendment were adopted.
Subsection (8) starts with the entirely acceptable statement that
No criminal proceedings should lie against any person on account of a contravention of the charter…

But the sting is in the rest of these two subsections:
…the obligation to comply with the charter is a duty owed to any person who may be affected by a contravention of it and any breach of that duty…is actionable…for breach of statutory duty.
The Government are in any case opposed to the use of legal sanctions in these matters. Apart from that, it is a very wide-ranging provision with a number of serious consequences which are difficult to analyse and weigh up at first sight but which would be dangerous. The proposal is that any breach of the charter would be actionable, but the contents of that charter are as yet unknown. Statutory duties, possibly extensive and onerous, would be imposed not by Parliament but by the parties to the charter. That is the proposal not of a wicked Labour Government but of the House of Lords.
Although Parliament would need to approve the charter in its final state, in certain circumstances it could have little practical control over the contents. It is quite indefensible that the party concerned should be enabled to draw up its own code which would include statutory offences which could be enforceable without Parliament's having detailed scrutiny over them. A charter drawn up for use by industry might well contain provisions in relation to an industrial agreement, but those provisions would not necessarily be suitable for enforcement in the courts.
6.30 p.m.
Subsection (8) in Lord Goodman's amendment produces no limitation on the ability of any person who may be affected by a contravention to bring an action for breach of statutory duty. No doubt the courts would take a commonsense approach on some of the more outrageous claims by those affected by breach of the charter. The whole subsection leaves the subject far too vague, and it is not a proper way for the House of Commons to legislate.
These objections to subsection (8) are strengthened by an examination of subsection (9), in particular of the definition of "industrial action". This is an extremely far-reaching provision. It would seem to deal not only with industrial action in journalism—and action in the courts is not the right answer there—but with action that interferes with the production of goods and services


wherever this might occur, provided that the action leads to an infringement of the charter. This means that the provision could well have repercussions in industries outside the Press, or even printing.
It is entirely wrong to introduce by a side wind provisions which are quite contrary to the Government's policy on industrial relations for industry generally. However, that would be the consequence of Lord Goodman's amendments, if they were placed on the statute book.
Whatever variations of view my hon. Friends and I may have on other matters, I hope that we can agree that these Lords amendments must be rejected on these grounds. If they were to be accepted we should have written into the legislation something which their Lordships did not intend and which even Lord Goodman did not intend. As I have indicated. Lord Goodman is a remarkable man. He engages in many sophisticated negotiations, but in some matters he is a babe in arms. [Interruption.] He has tabled an amendment which is quite impossible for the House of Commons to accept. Some people may argue whether the House of Lords should retain powers of revision. I am glad that the House of Commons still retains powers of revision. It would be a great error for anyone concerned with industrial relations to believe that Lord Goodman's amendment is acceptable in any way whatever. I hope that there will be no doubt about that.
I turn to our approach to some of the other matters. In general, the Government's amendments seek, with one or two additions which I shall underline—they are important because they are matters touched upon in the amendments tabled by some of my hon. Friends—to re-establish and reassert the general charter provision originally proposed in the House of Lords by Lord Houghton. In the main, we have not changed the charter. We have sought to make amendments to it. They are complicated amendments in the way they are set out on the Amendment Paper, but they add up to an acceptance of Lord Houghton's proposed code or charter. We have added two or three items to the circumstances in which the charter should be drawn up, which we believe assist the situation and help to alleviate the anxieties expressed in the House by some of my hon. Friends—anxieties which we share. Therefore,

there is no objection to incorporating these further suggestions in the amendment that we are making.
I turn to the circumstances in which the charter should be established. The general terms of the charter should indicate to parties outside Parliament the matters that should be embraced by it. They are set out in the amendment that we have tabled. We have added to the themes and discussions which Lord Houghton specified and which were understood to be embraced in any previous charter. We have added two items which figure in the main charter devised by Mr. Alastair Hetherington of The Guardian.
The first deals with the position of editors, because there has been much dispute and argument on the question whether editors should be forced to be in unions or closed shops. Secondly, there is the question of contributors' access to the Press, of trying to ensure that there is no interference with the access that contributors, not members of any journalistic union, should have to the Press. Those are the two matters on which considerable concern has been expressed throughout the country and which were raised in previous debates on this subject.
Under our proposal those two matters would have to be covered in the charter to be drawn up by the parties concerned. Our amendment shows how we have stated that proposition. It is the best way for the House to proceed in order to tackle the matter. Some of my hon. Friends have suggested that we should make those provisions more specific.
The third amendment deals with the way in which the charter could be cited in evidence and the kind of cases which could be involved. In our amendment to the Lords amendment we considered the kind of cases in which the charter might be cited and we have listed them in the way circumstances have demanded. We have given all the circumstances in which the charter could be so invoked. Some of my hon. Friends believed that by specifying the circumstances in which the charter might be cited in evidence in court we were in some way restricting the way in which it could be cited. That is not our intention. We were seeking to specify and illustrate the ways in which it could operate.


We still believe that our words are best, because they indicate the purpose of the operation. However, some of my hon. Friends believe that if we carried their amendments, which cut out the specification of individual instances, and agreed that the charter could be cited in all proceedings, a great change would be brought about. We do not believe that it would make any great change to the proposition. The charter, even without specification, could be cited in other proceedings. I am quite prepared to listen to any arguments that my hon. Friends advance, but if we were to accept their amendment, it would not make much difference to the proposition. However, we are prepared to consider it.
I turn to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) and others. Although the amendment seeks to clarify or specify the circumstances which should be taken into account when the charter is drawn up, it is carried rather wide. I do not think that it would be possible for the Government to accept the words in sub-amendment (a). The sub-amendment reads:
Line 3, leave out 'position of editors) and the question of access for contributors' and insert:
right of editors to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union) and the right of editors to commission and publish any article".
We think that that amendment is not acceptable, for the following reasons. First, although my hon. Friends who have tabled it are very concerned with seeking to protect contributors by knocking out our reference to contributors we believe that their amendment weakens the position of contributors rather than strengthens it.
Secondly, we believe that to write into the charter the words
the right of editors to commission and publish any article
would carry the matter very wide.
I am all in favour of trying to protect the legitimate rights of editors, but I do not think that the House of Commons should seek to lay down what may be regarded as a law about the
right of editors to commission and publish any article".

[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Let us think about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then answer."] I shall answer.
I do not want to utter any word of dissent about proprietors. The last time I mentoned proprietors in the House I was told not to drag them into a debate about the freedom of the Press, that it was reprehensible of me to do so, and that it was trying to introduce a note of bias into the discussions. Even the proprietors, whom we want to get to sign the charter and who must be parties to the charter if we are to have the freedom of the Press properly protected, may have some objection to
the right of editors to commission and publish any article".
Certainly it is a novel concept to me. I do not think that Mr. Murdoch gives that power to his editors.
One of the things that I want to secure—I do not know whether hon. Members opposite want to also—is the charter. We need all the different parties to that. There have been some cases in which the editor is fully protected against the proprietor. In most of those cases the editor is also the proprietor. As far as I know, there has not been much dispute between the proprietor and the editor of the Observer for years. Disputes may crop up again in years to come.
I do not believe that the words in my hon. Friend's amendment have been thought out very carefully. On second thoughts, I do not think that anyone will think that we could put such a concept into the form that is suggested here.
I come to another serious objection to the words as they stand. I repeat that what we are seeking to secure is a charter to be agreed between all the parties. So far, one party that has been quite prepared to come forward for such discussions is the National Union of Journalists. There was a period when it looked as if the NUJ or some sections of it would oppose that view. I am glad to see that the ballot which was conducted by the NUJ approved the union's come forward and being prepared to agree to a charter. I hope that the other parties will be prepared to do likewise.
I do not believe that the best way of ensuring that all the parties come forward to agree to such a charter is by insisting


upon these rights in advance, when others have rights, too. Editors certainly have rights. Even proprietors have rights, although I know that the Opposition hate to have it suggested that they should have rights. I am diffident enough to suggest that journalists have rights.
6.45 p.m.
To write into the charter at the very beginning that the position of editors is absolutely protected in some way, before we have even had discussions about what the rest of the charter is to contain, is not the best way to go about it if we want to get the charter. All of my hon. Friends want to get a charter. This is the great thing which I hope the Liberal Party is in favour of, too. I hope that some hon. Members opposite will want to have the charter. This is the real distinction between the two sides of the House. Whatever differences may arise in the debate, I hope that nobody will lose sight of the central point, that we want to get a charter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and others of my hon. Friends have tabled another amendment on the same subject. Although I do not want to cause any divisions in such a happy band, I am bound to say that it is an improvement on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) and others.
We considered the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West and others very seriously, of course, but we have to give even more serious consideration to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North and others. As I said at the beginning, I shall not give a final view about it until the amendment has been moved and I have heard the debate.
If we were to move in this direction, I still think that there would have to be some alteration in the wording, because it has implications that we should write into the charter in advance the particular requirements of editors and that that should not be on all fours with the requirements of other people. In this amendment, too, the position of contributors is not even put on the same basis as that of editors.
I agree that my hon. Friends have made a genuine effort to ensure that they

improved on the previous wording and to assist us in getting the charter started, so I shall listen to the speeches in favour of their amendment in that light. We shall have another opportunity. The House of Lords has its uses. Despite all the difficulties that it may have caused, we have another opportunity and we shall consider the matter after the end of the debate, when I have heard what my hon. Friends have to say about it.
I stress the central facts of the situation. The amendments bring out these facts. One central fact is the difference between the Government and the official Opposition, Lord Goodman and other Members of the House of Lords in their amendments. We do not believe that the complicated problem of the way in which the freedom of the Press is to be protected can be dealt with satisfactorily by legal provisions, particularly when we are asked to introduce into the law of the land legal provisions directed particularly against one trade union and saying that it is to be selected from all the others as the one to which we deny rights that other unions have.
I do not believe that that is a tolerable way in which to proceed. The more people think about it the wiser they will believe that the Government have been in their approach. There are a number of people throughout the country who do not believe in the freedom of the Press and who would try to throttle it. There are some in the newspaper profession itself who show scant respect for the freedom of the Press, whether they are proprietors or 57 varieties of Trotskyites, or whatever they may be. There are such people who do not have much interest in the freedom of the Press. If we believe in it genuinely, we must encourage those who are fighting for it and who are determined to sustain it. Contrary to the accusations which have been made against us, that is what we have been trying to do all along. What is more, we are succeeding.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: You have not convinced anyone.

Mr. Foot: Some of the people who have been convinced are those who are the most important of all—namely, those who work in the newspapers. If we are to have freedom of the Press, that freedom will not be laid down by Parliament,


by Conservatives or even by the infallible Lord Goodman. In fact, it will be fought for and sustained by those who work in the Press. That is what we want, and we want to give them every assistance possible by receiving support for our proposals. We shall give assistance to all those in the Press—including proprietors, editors and journalists—who want to sustain such freedom to the full.

Mr. Hayhoe: I hope that the House will reject the Secretary of State's advice. The freedom of the Press is one of the most important of our basic freedoms, and tonight, by supporting what are called the Goodman amendments, we help to buttress that vital freedom. To vote against the Goodman amendments—that is, in effect, what the right hon. Gentleman is asking for—will undermine Press freedom. The Opposition will well know their duty when it comes to a Division.
I do not think anyone in the House would challenge the sincerity of the Secretary of State or his deep concern for Press freedom. He felt it necessary to reiterate it this evening, but we accept it. We do not challenge his sincerity or deep concern about unemployment, but it has doubled from approximately 600,000 to 1¼ million during the 18 months of his office. We do not question his sincerity or deep concern over collective bargaining or his comments that a statutory wages policy would be one of disaster and despair, yet in 18 months collective bargaining has at least been partially suspended. Only a political theologian of the right hon. Gentleman's ingenuity can still argue that there is no trace of a statutory policy in the Government's attitude towards incomes and wages.
We do not question the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity or concern about Press freedom, but with that track record the more he protests his concern the more we fear for the precious and vital freedom of the Press which underpins individual liberty and toleration in our free society.
It is not the right hon. Gentleman's intentions which are at fault, which he spent some time in defending. We criticise the results that we are sure will flow from the actions which he supports.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there are many people in the House who passionately believe in Press freedom who find it difficult to equate that freedom with the fact that most of our daily and Sunday newspapers are owned by millionaires, who have usurped the freedom of the Press and distorted the matter in such a way that it is difficult for the ordinary person to get any rights in relation to the Press?

Mr. Hayhoe: I accept that some Labour Members hold that view. I have heard it expressed before, but I believe that they are mistaken in expressing it in that form. I hope that the debate will demonstrate the fallacy of that point of view.
I turn first to the question of whether any legislation on this matter is necessary. Last December, on Second Reading of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, the Secretary of State said "no" in response to that question. He maintained that absurd position throughout Committee and Report. Many will recall the inelegant and somewhat uncharacteristic phrase that he used—namely, that those in another place should keep their "lordly noses out of this matter".
However, the right hon. Gentleman now commends to us a provision in the Bill which was inserted in Committee by Lord Houghton and his friends—namely, provision for a charter on matters relating to the freedom of the Press. It appears that he has changed his mind and that some progress has been made from a do-nothing-at-all and leave-it-to-others position to an attitude of "Well, let us do something". But before we congratulate him too much on that score, let us remember that what he has in mind is little more than a pious hope, or a wishful think. The Manifesto Group's amendments would make little difference.

Mr. Foot: Let us get the history of the matter right. As I said, we are extremely grateful to Lord Houghton for the form in which he put the proposition in another place, which advanced the whole matter. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that on the occasion of Second Reading the proposition emerged from the National Union of Journalists that there should be a meeting


with a view to drawing up a charter, to which we gave full backing. There was no question of doing nothing at any stage.

Mr. Hayhoe: If the right hon. Gentleman reads what he said in all stages of the Bill to which I have referred—I have had to undertake that depressing task myself—he will find that he said that this was not a matter to be deal with by legislation. Of course, there was talk of a charter, but why make that silly intervention about it now? It is well known that in the early stages of the Bill the point at issue was the Secretary of State's total opposition to any legislation, but he has now come round a bit. It seems that he is happy to have some legislation as long as it is merely a pious hope and is ineffective. Perhaps with a little more time he will be able to consider these matters further and take the next vital step, and agree that some effective action must be taken.
I listened fascinated to the right hon. Gentleman's arguments about the Manifesto Group's amendments, the nice balance of wording between versions (a) and (b) and the differences between them. It is very largely a phoney business. There is no backing or sanction. There is no statutory enforcement of any kind available. It is all a pious expression of hope. It means no more and no less than that. I believe that Press freedom is far too precious not to deserve adequate defences. Words alone, be they the words of Houghton or the Manifesto Group, are not enough.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a sign of tangible progress can be seen to have been made already in terms of the special delegate meeting of the NUJ and its result? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether that result would have been more or less likely if the Goodman amendments, about which he is so keen, had been on the statute book?

Mr. Hayhoe: I shall have something to say about the meeting at Cardiff and the ballot. I shall cover both points. I have been giving way reasonably frequently and I think it might be wiser now to make some progress as the points that are being raised by Labour Members are points that I intend to cover.

I turn to an important matter to which the Secretary of State gave great attention on Second Reading. He said that there was immense urgency attached to this matter. He said on Second Reading on 3rd December,
I do not think that this is something that can be done in a matter of a few weeks".
That was in response to a suggestion from this side of the House that we wait until the Royal Commission considered the matter. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
This Bill is urgent because as long as the Act remains unamended it can give rise to highly explosive and dangerous industrial situations."—[Official Report, 3rd December 1974, Vol. 882, 1398.]
That was the right hon. Gentleman's forecast last December. That, too, has been proved to be quite phoney.
We have now gone on for 11 months and none of the highly dangerous and explosive situations to which he referred has occurred. What absolute nonsense he was then talking about urgency. The Bill left another place six months ago on 15th April. It is clear that all that he was saying to the House about urgency at the turn of the year was a load of bilge. Clearly he has paid no attention to that. The Bill has been rightly held up to allow for further consultations in an attempt to achieve an agreed solution. I am sorry that this has not been achieved. But it shows that the Opposition were right in counselling earlier that there should be delay for further consultations and that the Secretary of State was wrong in talking about urgency.
7.0 p.m.
A great deal has happened since Second Reading. I am sure that it is common ground between us that the issue itself has greatly broadened. It started as a rather limited, although very important, issue concerned with what constitutes fair or unfair dismissal in a closed shop situation and how that would affect the Press. It was also concerned with possibility of compensation upon dismissal for editors and the like. However, it has gradually broadened and because of the curious rules of procedure that exist in another place an amendment was able to be added to the Bill, which would have been totally out of order in this House, and which has made it a Bill concerned with amendments to trade union legislation, and also


about a charter on Press freedom. The other place has been able to do that and now we must deal with this much wider situation.
Many hon. Members are aware that Press freedom could be endangered by a combination of events which have occurred over the past 12 or 18 months. The changes in the law affecting closed shops was obviously the trigger for this, but the declared policy of the NUJ in the past to go for 100 per cent. membership has helped to worry people about what would happen. Other aspects of NUJ policy at that time, some of the articles in the Journalist and some of the comments made by leading members of the NUJ, created fear and worry as to what might happen if a closed shop situation was permitted by law and used by small groups of people within the NUJ who did not follow the point of view, which I think all hon. Members would agree is the point of view of the majority of the NUJ, namely, a great concern about Press freedom.
Growing concern about these developments was expressed by a formidable coalition of people. I believe that for the first time the London editors joined with the Guild of British Newspaper Editors to express concern. The Newspaper Society, the Institute of Journalists, many distinguished contributors and those concerned with magazines and printed periodicals all began expressing concern about the developing situation. The most recent manifestation is the evidence given by the Press Council to the Royal Commission. I should like to quote a small part of that on the specific question of the closed shop. The Council says:
if the 'appearance of a closed shop' is intended to mean or does mean a development by which the newspaper and magazine Press of this country was no longer open to receive the contributions of members of the public solely on the grounds that they were not enrolled in membership of a particular trade union, the Council would regard this as a totally unacceptable assault upon freedom of expression as hitherto enjoyed by the people of this country.
I hope that all hon. Members would regard it as a totally unacceptable assault if that consequence—I make that proviso—flowed from a closed shop in the newspaper and associated parts of the industry.
A single union closed shop for journalists is the fear of people who are worried about these developments. Of course, one accepts that a single union closed shop for journalists would much increase the bargaining powers of the members and of the union concerned. One recognises that not having a closed shop, especially in the newspaper industry, even having some people excluded from the operation of the closed shop such as editors and perhaps other senior personnel, puts a limitation upon the effectiveness of industrial action which may be taken to advance a wage claim or indeed for any other purpose. However, that increase in bargaining power which would flow from a single union closed shop for journalists would have to come at a tremendous price and at a price damaging to Press freedom.

Mr. Robert Adley: Does my hon. Friend also agree that the danger which could continue beyond the single union closed shop would be the ultimate difficulty of people who wanted to join the union being prevented from doing so?

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, because it would give the NUJ, or the people running the NUJ—the single union—power to say who would or would not be able to contribute to the Press of this country. I am not saying that they would necessarily use that power in an arbitrary fashion, but it would exist because the union, if the closed shop existed, would really be able to give, to use an emotive term, licences to those who were to contribute and to take licences from those who were not.

Mr. Ron Thomas: rose—

Mr. Hayhoe: If the NUJ came under the control of what the Prime Minister has called a highly motivated group of extremists, the danger would occur. If this can happen in constituency Labour Party associations, if the local units of the Labour Party are being taken over in this way, why could not something similar happen within chapels of the NUJ?
If we consider what is on record from the International Socialist, its view would probably be that the NUJ was rather an easier apple to pluck off the tree than many of the constituency associations of the Labour Party. If it can


happen to those associations, what magic has the NUJ to prevent it happening to it?

An Hon. Member: Women's institutes!

Mr. Ron Thomas: I should like the hon. Gentleman to go back to the point he made about contributors. The union membership agreement makes it quite clear that it is between employers and employees. The contributor whether he be Michael Foot or yourself, with all due respect—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not come into this at all.

Mr. Hayhoe: I think I heard an intervention about women's institutes. I do not know how the hon. Member's constituency association works, but if in his area it would be in the interests of the extreme left, the broad left, or the International Socialists to attempt to take over the women's institutes, which I doubt—[Laughter.] The laughter should be directed at the stupid and absurd observation made by the hon. Member, about women's institutes, because it is stupid to think that the left would want to take them over. However, I suspect they might find the task more difficult than taking over some of the chapels of the NUJ.
However, turning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) about contributors, a closed shop agreement, or a union membership agreement, can be written—indeed the standard one is written—in terms which do not impinge upon contributors. However, at the time of the industrial dispute in the provincial newspaper industry we saw action taken against small outside contributors.
There were indications at earlier meetings—at the ADM in 1974, if I remember rightly—and there had been articles in the Journalist to the effect that some members of the NUJ would like to achieve a situation where there would be a very severe limit upon the number of contributions which could come from outside people. [Interruption.] Yes, a very severe limit and then going down to zero would not be that much of a move. This is the danger. We on this side of the House are not arguing, nor has anyone who has

participated in the debate argued, that this is likely to happen in the next year or so. There is a remote possibility that it can happen. We should be concerned with guarding against that remote possibility.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the NUJ is on public record as stating:
The National Executive Council states its commitment to free access to the Press for any person consonant with the protection of the employment of NUJ members.
I urge the hon. Gentleman not to misinterpret the position of the NUJ over this matter.

Mr. Hayhoe: I hope that I am not misinterpreting it. I have tried all along to make it clear that I am not suggesting this is likely to happen. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's intervention followed the sentence in which I said I was not suggesting that it was likely to happen. I am saying that it is a remote possibility against which we must guard. The hon. Gentleman's intervention in no way indicated how he could be certain that this could never happen. And we cannot be certain. That is why we are concerned.
My purpose is not to attack the NUJ. I pay tribute now to its general secretary, Mr. Morgan, who has served the cause of the freedom of the Press extremely well over the years, as have most of the members of the National Executive Council and as unquestionably has the bulk of the members of the NUJ itself. But let us look at what has happened recently.
I turn to what happened about the ballot this year. The Secretary of State referred to the NUJ's proposals for a charter, which were broadly welcomed in all parts of the House. There was a wide welcome for those proposals as a useful initiative. There might have been differences as to how successful or effective such a charter was likely to be, but it was not seen as a damaging contribution to this whole affair. Earlier this year the NEC came forward with reasonable, though ineffective, proposals for a charter. They were repudiated by the annual delegates meeting at Cardiff last April on a very narrow vote. Let us be clear on that. The voting was 159 to 154. At that stage the ADM sabotaged the efforts then being made to create a climate


of opinion in favour of some voluntary charter.
I will not trouble to read from The Guardian leader of 26th April which makes this point very clear. This has been "one in the eye", was the expression, or something like that, "for Michael"—I must not use his name. It had been "one in the eye" for the Secretary of State and Lord Houghton. The article went on to say that, since the NUJ's annual conference had demonstrated its militant intention, the case for Goodman was greatly reinforced. That conclusion was perfectly valid and remains so.
I think that most of us were astonished that the ADM should have voted in that way in view of all the public interest. If it had been a little cleverer, it surely would have held back for a year or two and used its voting power later. It chose not to do that. Instead, it chose to exert its power at that time in a way which damaged the discussions and the climate of opinion which had been and was being created by Lord Houghton and others for a voluntary charter.
As a result of that vote there was great public concern and a ballot of all the members was held. The appropriate number of branches asked for the ballot and a postal ballot was taken. That postal ballot largely undid the decision taken at the annual delegate meeting. Members voted against the repudiation of that meeting of the NEC's statement regarding 100 per cent. membership and the rights of editors. They dealt with the 100 per cent. membership and repudiated the view expressed at the annual delegate meeting.
7.15 p.m.
I will not go through the whole list. Broadly speaking, one could say that the postal ballot rejected the narrow vote victories of the militant element at that meeting in Cardiff. It showed that when a large number of people take part, often a more responsible and moderate—if I may use that word in the presence of the Secretary of State—result ensues. That is a lesson which has wider implications for much of the voting for union officers in this country.
The complete opposition to any charter of Press freedom which had been declared

was reversed by the postal ballot. Therefore, the official policy of the NUJ is presumably in favour of the voluntary approach.

Mr. Whitehead: rose—

Mr. Hayhoe: I should like to finish this point. The repudiation was damaging to the Houghton amendments, but the ballot result gave them a fresh impetus. The more responsible elements in the union had achieved a useful result.
I now want to look at what happened on another issue, because on this issue the ADM was overturned by postal ballot. Let us go back to what happened in the NUJ regarding the dispute over registration under the Industrial Relations Act. The NEC of the NUJ voted 21 to 9 in favour of holding a ballot on the issue of registration. A ballot was held. A total of 6,384 voted, "Yes, we will register under the Industrial Relations Act", and 3,807 voted against. There was a substantial majority in favour of registration. It was a much greater majority than was achieved on most issues in the recent postal ballot.
What happened? The next annual delegates meeting overturned the ballot decision. It took a decision, by 298 votes to 82, not to register. What help was the ballot? There was a great row over that ADM decision. Therefore, a re-run followed, at which the voting was 171 to 160. With these great oscillations of opinion and the enormous changes which are taking place, it would be unwise for us to rely on, though we welcome wholeheartedly, the result of that ballot by the members of the NUJ.

Mr. Whitehead: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now answer my question. Would that ballot and the ADM have taken place with the results we know if the Goodman amendments had been on the statute book within the framework of law which poisoned industrial relations in 1971? That was why we had the situation with the ADM at that time.

Mr. Hayhoe: I find it difficult to accept that industrial relations were poisoned in 1971, having just read the voting. I will read it again. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misheard me. The voting in favour of registration under the Industrial Relations Act was 6,384 to 3,807—a majority


of about two to one. If that kind of approach had been followed by other unions we would have had a very different and better climate of industrial relations today. It is highly questionable as to what would have happened if the Goodman amendments had been accepted by the Government and been accepted widely in the House. I do not think that there would have been any great change in the result of the ballot.
I do not know what would have happened if the Goodman amendments had been carried in a different way but I am not sure whether, on an issue as important as this, the rather transitory result of one postal ballot in the NUJ should be the talisman by which we judge this issue. Are not more vital and long-lasting matters at stake when we are considering the freedom of the Press?

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: If the hon. Gentleman welcomes wholeheartedly, as he said, the change of policy in the NUJ, why does he not give a fair wind to the idea of a charter? Why not try it and see what happens? It may be that the so-called moderate members of the NUJ who overwhelmingly want a charter—and I do not think the hon. Gentleman would argue otherwise—and do not want Goodman would sustain the position and sustain the charter.
Why does the hon. Gentleman not tell us a little more about editors and their attitude to a charter? Is it not true that some of the editors have deserted the idea of a charter being a bad thing and are now prepared to discuss it? If the hon. Gentleman would lend his weight to this idea, would it not be reasonable to try to get the charter, overturn the proprietors, and get the editors and journalists together?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not believe that a charter, expressing a pious hope, representing wishful thinking about general objectives without any back-up of any kind, would be a sufficient defence of this vital issue of the freedom of the Press.
The Secretary of State said that the Goodman amendment was a defective way of dealing with this issue and he was horrified at the thought of some document which had been agreed by people outside being annexed to a statute and then being

used in actions before the courts. What an incredibly short memory the right hon. Gentleman has. What about this document, "The Attack on Inflation"," which had an annex not agreed between different people but issued by the TUC and which became the law of the land? The right hon. Gentleman sat up all night and we thought that he was listening to the debate, but obviously he was not because all that he said about the defectiveness of the Goodman approach is totally destroyed because the Government chose this very approach in a more extreme form when they introduced this Remuneration, Charges and Grants Bill. There is nothing in his argument, and so I come to the essence of the whole matter.
Parliament has to choose between two different and important principles—the sanctity of the closed shop and the freedom of the Press. I believe the reason, and the only reason, why the Secretary of State opposes the legal provisions of the Bill is because they would in a narrow way strike at the principle of the closed shop.
I remember the brilliant speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) during the debates on this issue in 1971. The closed shop is an important and vital principle—I accept that—though perhaps some of my hon. Friends would not give it as much support or understand its importance in the way I do. Enthusiasm for the closed shop runs through the fears, views and development of ideas of so many people within the Labour and trade union movement.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: rose—

Mr. Hayhoe: No. I am trying to put my argument to the House as fairly as I can.
I accept the importance of the closed shop. It is an important principle to many people. I accept that it is more important to Labour Members than it is to my hon. Friends on this side of the House, but the freedom of the Press is the other principle that is at stake, and I believe that a choice has to be made tonight between the one and the other. We are not asked to say that the one must always offend against the other, though that is what the Press Council implied in taking an extreme view. But we are


asked to recognise that there is a possibility of conflict between a single union closed shop for journalists and the freedom of the Press. I accept that some Government Members do not agree with what I am saying, for this is the very issue that is dividing us, and if the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) thinks that at this stage in the proceedings a bit of paper from the Department of Employment will make much difference he has little understanding of this debate.
There is a straight choice to be made, and I am sorry that members of the Manifesto Group have not followed the logic of their concern over this matter. As far as I can see, they have played with words. I am not sure which amendment they are supporting. It may be that they are supporting both, and it will be interesting to see what happens. It seems that this is largely a private semantic squabble between hon. Members on the Government benches and we should leave them to it, because it is sheer cosmetics which set of words is used. It would not surprise me if, during the last minute or two or his reply to the debate, the Secretary of State makes a concession which will sweep the boys into the Lobby once more. We have seen this happen in the past, and all that is going on now leads one to think that there will be a theatrical gesture such as that.
We believe that the Government amendments, even if they are cosmetically modified by one or more of the amendments proposed by the Manifesto Group, fall far short of what is required in the defence of the freedom of the Press. If we are to have a proper, effective and adequate defence of Press freedom we need more than is contained in the Government amendments. That is why we shall oppose and vote against them whether or not they are modified by the Manifesto Group amendments.
The Goodman amendments do not, of course, guarantee Press freedom. Neither he nor anyone else, as far as I know, has ever suggested that they would. Press freedom depends on very much wider considerations than those involved in the issues that we are dealing with tonight. It is readily accepted, if I may quote from a leader in The Times, that
the freedom of the Press rests not on statute but on diversity of publication and diversity

of access to publication It is not perfect, but it is rare, and it needs to be supported and defended; statute did not create it, but at least we must see that statute does not take it away.
I think that when we have to make our decision later tonight the duty of the Opposition will be clear, and our choice will be in favour of the defence of the freedom of the Press.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In proposing the Question earlier you said that it was "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment" and not "That the amendment be made".

Mr. Speaker: I was about to say that the Question before the House is whether the amendment to line 10 be made. I shall call the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) next, but he cannot now formally move his amendment. The time to do that will come later. The hon. Member can take part in the general debate on all the amendments before the House.

Mr. John Horam: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he had been a member of the NUJ for 40 years. I cannot match that, having been a member of that union for only eight years, but I share the concern of my right hon. Friend, which I know is real, for the working journalist and also for the freedom of the Press. As my right hon. Friend said, these two matters are inextricably mixed. Those who have worked in the industry are most concerned about the freedom of the Press, and it is remarkable how little understanding the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) showed of the position of the NUJ in this matter.
The Lords amendments have always seemed to me to be the wrong approach, and I am sure that virtually all my right hon. and hon. Friends share that feeling. The amendments are wrong because they are phrased in an extremely anti-trade union manner. They are virtually a proprietors' charter. In addition, they drag the law back in industrial relations in a way which we have known for so long to be so dangerous and provocative.
7.30 p.m.
It is for these two combined reasons that I have always rejected, and still


emphatically reject, the Goodman approach to this problem, and strongly support, and always have done, the general approach followed by my right hon. Friend. Indeed, I think that he has shown great patience. This subject appears to require great patience. It seems an epoch ago since it raised its head. Rather belatedly the editors reacted to the situation. This was astonishing, as the Bill had been before the House and almost passed. Only at the last moment did it strike home to these watchers of our freedom that there was something really important at stake here.
Not only has my right hon. Friend shown great patience. He has also, in what he has said tonight, been very flexible. I hope that we can be rewarded with even greater flexibility when he winds up. I was delighted with what he said about how the charter will be invoked in an industrial tribunal or in law, but I will leave comment on that to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) whose name is appended to amendment (b).
What should go into the charter, which I believe to be an absolutely valid approach to this problem? My right hon. Friend's wording has three clear elements in it. First, there is the question of improper pressure on the media or critics. On this point, we are entirely in agreement, and it seems to me that my right hon. Friend's phrasing of this is a considerable improvement on Lord Goodman's phrasing, because it also protects freedom of the Press, not only from what can happen from trade union pressure but also from proprietorial pressure.
We must be absolutely even-handed in our approach to this problem, and it is the lack of this that disfigures the Goodman approach. I find cause for concern in relation to the other two aspects of what should be in the charter. The first of these is the position of the editors and the second is the access of contributors. My right hon. Friend says that both these points should be covered. I believe that we should not only say that they should be covered but to some extent how they should be covered, for unless we have guaranteed the fact that an editor can pursue his duties and discharge his functions in a perfectly normal manner, and unless also we have guaranteed

access to the media by non-journalists, we do not have a free Press. In my opinion the definition of a free Press would revolve around these two pillars.
I would add, reflecting what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), that we also need a multiplicity of newspapers. I regret the tendency to concentration that we have seen over the years.
Those three matters would guarantee us a free Press and two of them are covered, I hope, by my amendment. Incidentally, one of them is not a matter of controversy at all, for the NUJ has conceded the position of the editors. This was backed by the ballot, in which my right hon. Friend and I voted—I imagine on the right side. It was decided that the editor need not be a member of the NUJ, so this is beyond dispute, It is only on the question of access that there is still some room for negotiation and disagreement.
Aside from his particular criticisms of the wording, my right hon. Friend had one basic disagreement with the approach contained in the two amendments, (a) and (b), on the content of the charter. I think he was basically saying, "I agree with your aims and I want a charter, but what you are doing will make it more difficult to achieve." The question of how difficult this is to achieve is a very open one. I do not know whether there will be agreement on this charter within 12 months. My right hon. Friend does not know whether there will be agreement. We do not know how valuable such an agreement will be. It is a difficult matter and there is an area of uncertainty about it. It may possibly cause certain greater difficulty to my right hon. Friend in negotiating the charter, but how otherwise is Parliament to state its view?
Surely we have a right—indeed a duty—to set out the framework within which to discuss the question of freedom of the Press. It is at this point of time, when we are debating it in the House of Commons, that we should insert our view as to how these negotiations should be conducted. We are only talking about the irreducible minimum. We are forgetting the position of the Institute of Journalists and who should be considered as an


editor. All these matters should be considered, rightly, by the other parties to this debate. But we are also parties to the debate, and it is at this point in time, when we are setting the framework for these negotiations, that we should insert our own view. I can see no other way of inserting the sort of framework we should have.
My right hon. Friend may say that there will be another opportunity when he has to consider this, when these negotiations are completed, at the end of 12 months. He may say that certainly it falls short of these two essential matters—access for contributors and the position of the editors, who should have the right to do their job without pressure. Why not have it in the Bill, so that the negotiations may be conducted in an open and clear manner? Then everyone will know where Parliament stands on this and we can discuss all the other important matters within that framework.
My right hon. Friend used the argument, in dismissing the Goodman point, that there is some danger in saying that a charter can be invoked as evidence in an industrial tribunal or court of law, and yet left totally open as to what it contains. There is some danger in adopting that sort of posture, and we should therefore say as a Parliament that we are setting certain minimum standards—which is all we are doing—to which the participants in the negotiations should adhere.
I believe that Parliament must set the framework for this vitally important debate, even if—and I concede the point—it makes it possibly more complicated to conduct these negotiations.
My right hon. Friend said that my particular formulation, which happens to have my name at the head of it, would cause him some difficulty, so perhaps I may explain how it comes about that there are alternative versions on the Order Paper. It arises from the fact that we only came back to the House on Monday. An amendment of some kind had to be put down then so that the subject could be debated today. Therefore we simply put down literally what we thought of in the first couple of hours spent in discussing the question. Subsequently there were second thoughts and these are expressed in the second amendment.

We had an opportunity of discussion with some of the parties concerned, including my right hon. Friend, and we thought it was a better way of phrasing it. I put my name to the second amendment—as a matter of chance it also happens to appear at the head of the first amendment—and I feel that the second is preferable in its phraseology to the first. The substance is very similar.
I agree that the semantics are lost on most people and may not have much influence on what happens, but I feel that there must be some substance in these two points in the charter before it goes out to be negotiated. There is, first, the protection for the position of the editor. Second, there is the right of any person to have his article printed, if requested by the editor, in a newspaper. Those two points must be guaranteed in some way which satisfies me before I can feel that Parliament has really fulfilled its obligation to meet the public interest in regard to freedom of the Press. I do not think Parliament should stand aside on this issue.

Mr. J. Grimond: I wish to declare an interest in this matter. I shall speak briefly because most of the arguments and the fears aroused by these proceedings have been gone over repeatedly.
There are now three issues. I am in favour of a charter. The first issue is whether it should have sanctions behind it or not, and I think that it should. The other two points are whether the two vital issues which exercise the House are sufficiently emphasised without the amendments. I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam). I agree that the two vital points are the freedom of editors and access for contributors. I agree also that we are showing our usual predilection which has been obvious over the last two years of putting the cart before the horse. It would probably be better to debate this matter a year hence when the Royal Commission on the Press will have reported. However, as with the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland, under the Conservatives we chose to set up a Scottish Assembly before that report was received, and this sort of practice now seems to be a parliamentary habit.


We are discussing the freedom of the Press. I dissent from the peroration of the Secretary of State in which he seemed to imply that it would be wrong for Parliament to deal on a selective basis with the Press as against other industrial relationships and that to invoke the law is wrong and would cause trouble. On this matter we are entitled to treat this provision selectively and to invoke the law if that were appropriate.
It would be a foolish proprietor who did not take account of the NUJ. On the Guardian and the Manchester Evening News they have been co-operative on the whole. They fight their corner, but so do we all. I do not regard these amendments as being aimed at any particular situation concerned with the present behaviour of the NUJ. They are legitimate steps which Parliament is seeking to take to safeguard the freedom of the Press against possible future threats, and one must concede that a closed shop could be a threat, whether enforced by the NUJ or anyone else, and that there could be threats to access for contributors to the Press and the freedom of editors.
I believe that our society is in danger of shutting out criticism and doing too much in secret. Clearly, if public opinion, the House of Commons, the universities and other centres of criticism are to be effective we must guarantee the freedom of the Press. There are many specialist contributors, and I am thinking particularly of the local Press, who clearly should be guaranteed freedom if the editors wish to employ them.
The Secretary of State made several valid points of criticism about the drafting of the amendments. I am in favour of a charter and I hope that it will be drawn up and will be successful. However, I take the point that it would be useful for those who are considering the charter to have some indication of the views of the House of Commons, and what it feels is vital in this situation. Therefore, we are entitled to sharpen up somewhat these two points. I have a great deal of sympathy with the two amendments to line 3. However, the phrase:
the question of access for contributors
is not definite enough. The words
the right of editors to commission and publish any article

may possibly go rather far. The position of proprietors is a difficult one. It is a long-standing tradition on The Guardian that we the trustees would not dream of interfering with the editor, but I would resent a proprietor who took up a Pontius Pilate attitude about what his paper did. The proprietor cannot always plead to the freedom of the editor. It cuts both ways. If these words are not precisely what is wanted perhaps we could, since this is a vital point, find the words which would make it clear.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman is underlining the fact that he does not agree with the words in either of the amendments. He referred to the words:
the right of editors to…publish any article",
and an offence against that provision would be a breach of the charter. What about cheque-book journalism, for example? There are many examples which could be given. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the words I have referred to do not express what he wants or what many other people want.

Mr. Grimond: I am trying to be reasonable. I have fairly given the right hon. Gentleman the credit for making a valid point. I agree with him and I hope that some amendment to the amendment might be possible, but I maintain that something along the lines of the amendment would improve the Bill and would give a more definite indication as to what the House of Commons would like to see written into it.
I have, therefore, these three points. We are justified in writing in sanctions and we must be sharper about the freedom of editors and access for contributors.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Whitehead: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), particularly when he is speaking, as he is here, in part as a representative of the Guardian Trust, a very enlightened body of proprietors. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam), I declare an interest in my membership of the NUJ. It is becoming something of an auction among my hon. Friends as to


who has been a member longest. I have been a member for 12 years and I intend to remain so for the rest of my professional life. It is as a member of the NUJ that I wish to speak to the amendment which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I do so as a clear supporter of the general position that the Secretary of State has taken in this Bill and as an absolute opponent to all the amendments introduced in another place by Lord Goodman.
We have moved a long way since February of this year in our discussions and arguments about the Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) was somewhat grudging in his acceptance of that fact. There was the point concerning his exposition of what had gone on in the NUJ. It seemed to me that he was unclear about the difference between the ADM and the SDM, and the situation which had brought about the special meeting.
Then there was the question of ballots. The hon. Gentleman was prepared to talk about the ballot in 1971. But what happened after that? The ballot on this issue in the NUJ produced a conclusive result. He is to be excused for not knowing all these facts because very few column inches and very little editorial comment were devoted to it. Many column inches were devoted to the decision of the ADM in Cardiff, to what happened there, to the terrible danger that this conspiracy posed to the freedom of the Press.
However, through its own democratic institutions, the union overturned that decision through a proportion of its members and their branches, through a ballot properly conducted. A somewhat complex form had to be filled in with a result which most of us here would welcome, and about which there were very few comments in the newspapers.
I have been trying to find out how much newspaper comment there was welcoming this decision by the NUJ compared to the amount of condemnation of the NUJ resulting from the earlier decision. The answer is, in proportionate terms, about one to 10. That demonstrates something about the crocodile tears which have been shed over the issue of Press freedom by those who

seized upon the decision of the ADM in Cardiff as being something of a miraculous vindication of Lord Goodman. However, the contrary is the case. The situation at Cardiff might not have happened without Lord Goodman. I do not say that Lord Goodman wishes consciously to do harm in these matters. Quite the contrary. But he cannot practically do good because he is what he is—chairman of the NPA. Every working journalist knows only too well that the newspaper publishers and proprietors have never been interested in behaviour, codes of conduct and the protection of editors in the past.
There are still proprietors in that small group in Fleet Street to this day who think no more of changing their editor than they do of changing their socks. These people have never been interested in the protection of editors and we look with some scepticism on their pronouncements now.
I take the view that the Goodman amendments in toto would have been disastrous if added to the legislation—precisely because they would have brought about, as we saw with the Industrial Relations Act 1971, that atmosphere of hostility, bitterness and friction in which all kinds of views would have come to the surface which would have been quite against the charter, collaboration and the general recognition of those essential categories of freedom of the Press and the uninterrupted right of access to which we would all subscribe.
That is the difference and that is why I think that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth has been ungracious in his attitude to the NUJ—although I echo entirely what he said about the present general secretary, Ken Morgan. Perhaps a word of praise from me for Ken Morgan would not do him as much harm as a word from the hon. Member.
I now turn quickly to the two amendments (a) and (b) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West and me. The reason for the difference in wording, which is far from semantic, as it was dismissed by hon. Members opposite, essentially is that I feel, in contradistinction to my hon. Friend, that his wording would be widely misunderstood, that it would appear to carry the overtones of Lords Amendment


No. 7 as moved by Lord Goodman in another place and would, therefore, be counter-productive in the arguments and discussions which must now go on with and for the NUJ and the other parties to this argument.
The NUJ, quite unlike some of the other parties, has welcomed and accepted the idea of a charter. Not all the others were very forthcoming in this matter. That is the case up to this moment and that is why my right hon. Friend is probably right, in his first amendment, to ask for more time so that we can stand back to allow these discussions to take place. I do not believe that the amendment in the wording of my hon. Friends would be particularly helpful, because it would suggest that here again there is that anti-trade union element in what is being proposed. That is shot through all of Lords Amendment No. 7. If it were to come to a vote on that amendment, I would vote against it and with the Government.
We have to consider the position of editors and the special privileges and protection that they may have in the context of the privileges and protection that others have to have. The Secretary of State is right about that. That is why, in my amendment, I would strongly favour keeping, and have in fact retained, the question of access to contributors, because that is equally important. We would not elevate the editor and say that he is without sin or that there have never been bad editors or editors who have abused their position. That is not so: there have been editors who have abused their position.
Equally, there might be editors who for some reason could abuse their right, if they were given a general and uninhibited right, to publish any material they liked. That may be the main point that my right hon. Friend would address to those of us who support the amendment. What about the editor who will not publish material from trade unions, the editor who will publish only salacious material or who publishes too much of it?
The answers to those two questions are slightly different. Taking the second first, if, as my right hon. Friend said in an intervention to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the editor decides that he will go in totally for

cheque book journalism and will publish that sort of disgraceful material, as most of us would see it, that is covered in the earlier part of my right hon. Friend's amendment from which none of us would dissent. We support and applaud it and would follow him to the death in introducing it into the legislation. That, and the follow-up procedures of the Press Council and whatever in its wisdom the Royal Commission on the Press may later recommend, is the safeguard we need in that respect.

Mr. Foot: I understand that, but the difficulty is that there might be a contradiction between the clause that says that under the charter they must oppose all forms of distortion and this clause which says that the editor must have an absolute right to publish anything he wants. That is one of the contradictions that we must try to overcome.

Mr. Whitehead: Yes, there is something absolutely specific about the phraseology concerning improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment or criticism, because "suppression" and "distortion" could, I think, cover matters of that kind. But I see the point about contradiction and I do not think that, in the time scale that we have had to consider this matter—48 hours—this drafting, any more than that of any other amendment, including perhaps even those of my right hon. Friend, is the alpha and omega of parliamentary draftsman's wisdom.
I am prepared, if my right hon. Friend accepts this principle because it enshrines, in what seems to me a sensible way which would be acceptable to the NUJ, the two essential points on which my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West has touched, to say, "Yes, that is one of the uses of the House of Lords. A properly drafted form of words which perhaps looks at the freedom to publish any article and covers this possible contradiction is what we need and what I certainly would find acceptable." I do not suggest that we have got absolutely everything in the amendment in precisely the form in which it must emerge in the legislation. What worries me is that if we do not have it in the legislation we are giving another hostage to fortune, a powerful armament in the hands of those in the House of Lords who are out to wreck the Bill entirely.


I have no doubt that there are those elements in another place who would be prepared if they could, even at the cost of some constitutional confrontation, to wreck this legislation altogether. I do not wish to see them using any argument in the House of Lords to the effect that we have been dismissive of fundamental rights, such as these are, which would be enshrined in the charter.
The arguments about the charter must go on between the parties concerned, and Parliament is right to have its viewpoint, but we have to be certain that as this goes through the arguments in another place, we can carry a majority there. If we get into a constitutional situation in which they are trying to wreck the Bill altogether, we on this side will all be of one mind. There will be no argument then about the small print of the Bill. It will be a straight argument, peers versus people.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Do not be too sure of that.

Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend may be a greater expert than I, but if the House of Lords were to chuck out the Bill under the inspiration of Lord Goodman or anyone else, the argument would be different.
This is essentially, therefore, our last effective chance in this place to get the drafting as right as we can. I hope we will. When my hon. Friends and I have been trying to do is introduce into the charter and to reinforce for all of those who may be parties to the forthcoming discussions and who would wish it the classical freedoms concerning the Press and entry and access and the functions of newspaper editors.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be at the very least as persuaded by this and as warm in principle towards it as he was in his introductory remarks.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Aitken: I very much accept the theme of the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and that of the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) that the amendment which they have discussed is an important contribution to ensuring that Parliament has a say in what should be done in preserving

the vital rights of access and the vital editorial independence in this whole controversy. This is a praiseworthy attempt which should have been made long ago.
At this eleventh hour, the Secretary of State still has not recognised the two elephantine errors of judgment that he has been making throughout the interminable passage of the Bill. The first is that in all the arguments about the closed shop he has failed to realise the profound difference between those unions engaged in the mechanical processes of manufacturing industry and those engaged in the creative process of public communications.
If only the Government had recognised from the start that the media is a unique case and that the question of preserving access to it requires special safeguards, much of the controversy about this Bill could have been avoided as could the absurd humbug from those who suggest that we who wish to see safeguards written in are anti-trade union or anti-NUJ or are trying to bring back the Industrial Relations Act. These thoughts have not been in the minds of any of my colleagues or in the minds of their Lordships.
The Secretary of State has made a fundamental error in always championing the interests of the NUJ in this debate. It would not matter if it was just a case of championing the interests of the NUJ against the interest of the proprietors at whose expense he has naturally had a little innocent fun. But there is a third, much more important interest involved—the public interest. Readers have rights in this matter too. They will be deprived if a closed shop in journalism is created and, as a result, newspapers are deprived of outside contributions, or the independence of editors is threatened.
It is very important to realise that this threat is real. I have here a recent edition of the Financial Times. In the sporting columns there is the unusual sight of a completely blank space containing only the words
We had intended to publish in this space a report by Mr. Peter Robbins, our Rugby correspondent for the past nine years. The report does not appear because certain members of the National Union of Journalists, on instructions from their union, refused to handle it.


I understand the distinguished rugby correspondent of the Financial Times was suddenly faced with this challenge and was told he could not contribute any longer because he was not a member of the NUJ. He said he would like to become a member, but was told he could not join because less than one-third of his total income was derived from journalism. This kind of infringement of the basic right of access to the media must be stopped.

Mr. Whitehead: Could the hon. Member tell us whether he has ever seen a blank space in the Financial Times where the articles of Mr. C. Gordon Tether should have been?

Mr. Aitken: That is an interesting point. Mr. Gordon Tether's articles which have not been published by the Financial Times as a result of a dispute between him and the editor, have not been banned, as might happen in the case of a closed shop, from all newspapers throughout the country. They have been immediately republished in The Spectator.
In the case of a quarrel between an editor and an individual journalist, the journalist has other options, painful though they might be. He could work for any of the other 12 national newspapers or the 1,300 provincial newspapers. That is 1,312 times beter than having a quarrel with the monopoly union, the NUJ, which, if it enforced a ban, could put a journalist out of work throughout the country. It is not valid for the hon. Member for Derby, North to try to equate the two circumstances.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I know that the hon. Member is trying to be fair in the matter of sports writers, but he would be fairer if he recognised that the issue of contributions by non-journalistic sports writers has been going on between the NUJ and the NPA for many years. It is an extremely difficult problem and, in times of industrial pressure, things happen which are not normal or run-of-the-mill. This problem is being discussed by the union and proprietors.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Member makes a perfectly valid point when he refers to the question of distinguished sportsmen who just talk to a journalist and then have articles credited to them and not to the

journalist. I concede his point, but that has no validity in the C. Gordon Tether argument.
Throughout these debates the Secretary of State has consistently championed and been prejudiced in favour of the NUJ and turned a Nelsonian blind eye to arguments from almost every other quarter. He has tried to pretend, in his usual verbal conjuring trick style, that the only people against the NUJ in the present situation are those nasty people, the tyrannical proprietors. The real situation is very different. For some reason, proprietors are being rather silent throughout the debates and the voices expressing the loudest alarm about the prospect of a closed shop in the media have come from such well-known Conservative supporters as Mr. J. B. Priestley, Professor Bernard Crick, Mr. Peter Jenkins of The Guardian, Mr. Larry Lamb of the Sun and Professor A. J. Ayer. Even Sir Dingle Foot has attacked the Bill in the sort of newspaper article Cain might have written about Abel in Biblical days. Socialist peers in another place accepted the Secretary of State's invitation to "poke their lordly noses" into this matter. The Secretary of State has turned his back on all this fraternal, comradely and lordly advice and retained throughout a touching faith in the NUJ.
Several hon. Members have sounded complacent notes about the NUJ tonight as a result of the postal ballot result. As a member of the NUJ for about 10 years, I voted in that ballot and I welcome the result as a great improvement on the deplorable ADM decision, but the NUJ cannot be entrusted as the sole guardian of what does or does not get into the media. Anyone who knows the first thing about the NUJ must realise that, politically, it is a very schizophrenic organisation, with members whose views range from the right of General Franco to the left of Chairman Mao. As a result of this bizarre mixture and chiefly because of the latter element, there is a considerable amount of volatility and instability in the handling of NUJ affairs. One symptom is that decisions reached in postal ballots are liable to be overturned suddenly by ADM, which is the real powerhouse of the NUJ. The Secretary of State wishes us to believe that, following the postal ballot, the NUJ will now guarantee to support the liberties enshrined in that vote. Such a belief


would be a triumph of hope over experience. Twice in the last four years, the ADM has overturned the vote of a postal ballot of the whole membership. In 1971 the mass membership voted to register under the Industrial Relations Act and the ADM overturned the decision. Later the same year, the membership voted for a ballot on a merger with the smaller union, the Institute of Journalists. That decision was also overturned. Put not your faith in NUJ postal ballots.

Mr. Foot: I am sure that in his search for accuracy the hon. Member would wish to bring the story up to date and make clear that the NUJ has changed the rules, requiring now that a ballot decision can only be overturned by a ballot. I am sure he will give a proper welcome to it. Perhaps I interrupted him just as he was about to tell us about this action. It will be an improvement.

Mr. Aitken: Unfortunately the ADM can even overturn that provision. The basic volatility point remains true. It is unwise to have complete faith in the NUJ as the sole guardian of what does or does not appear in the media. Safeguards are needed. What kind of safeguard should apply. Here we come to the Lords amendments. In my view they insert adequate safeguards. They are sensible. They define various rights and responsibilities and legal enforceability with admirable clarity. The trouble with the Secretary of State's amendments to the Lords amendments is that they deliberately set out to dilute and weaken the safeguards which the Lords amendment requires. They have done this by re-wording the Lords amendment into what I believe to be almost meaningless gobbledygook.
The one contribution made by the amendment tabled by the Manifesto Group is that it at least makes some linguistic and semantic sense. In line 10 of the Lords amendment it is said that this charter must contain rules of conduct. The Secretary of State wants to have this altered for the charter only to contain "practical guidance." I believe that emasculation to be typical of the Secretary of State's attitude.
Will all these tough customers in the newspaper business—be they these

tyrannical proprietors, union militants or these strong editors—when they are in dispute and sit down with this charter to find out what is in it and see how they should act, take any notice of "practical guidance?" Of course not. What they want is rules of conduct. Imagine if instead of rules of procedure in this House there was practical guidance. The place would be bedlam in no time. This is an indication of how useless are the words "practical guidance". We may as well have "girl guidance" or "good food guidance". It is absolutely meaningless.
Lines 17 to 28 of the Lords amendment spell out exactly what the charter must do to preserve editors' independence and that of their deputies. The most important right is that of journalists to join a trade union of their choice. That is an important measure when we think of the Institute of Journalists which has not come much into our discussions but which in my view is a totally admirable and small union. An increasing number of journalists are joining it. There is the right of editors to publish articles free of pressure resulting from industrial action. Look at what happened in the recent dispute at Birmingham when the National Graphical Association blacked copy which was handed in by members of the Institute who had recently changed over from the NUJ because they were fed up with the militancy of the NUJ.
That is an example of the kind of industrial action which might be summed up in the Secretary of State's language by saying to the print unions, "Keep your print union noses out of this kind of business". We need some sort of safeguard against this kind of action. There is also the right of journalists not to be arbitrarily expelled or excluded from their union. All of these will be swept away by the Secretary of State's amendments because as far as I can see he wants this charter to be outlined in the vaguest possible language.
The right hon. Gentleman refers to "the position of editors." What position? He does not refer to their deputies or those exercising editorial functions and rights. That is an important omission. All he refers to is this
question of access for contributors


which is again a vague phrase. The result of this vagueness is that the charter might well end up saying that contributors should have no access and the editor should have no independence. The wording is so vague that that could be so. I am not suggesting that is what the Secretary of State wants.
The advantage of the amendment tabled by the Manifesto Group is that it at least puts in specific terms what is required and what those responsibilities are. Although it is a weak step, it is a step in the right direction and I will support it.
Finally we come to the matter of enforceability of the charter. The Secretary of State wishes to see subsections 8 and 9 deleted. As far as I can see the point is that these two subsections would make an action actionable at law. The right hon. Gentleman's amendment would water down the Lords amendment to complete legal uselessness and futility by maintaining that contravention of the charter is not actionable. The right hon. Gentleman says in his amendment that matters of the charter may be admissible in evidence. What on earth does that mean? I am no lawyer, but as I understand it it means something like this—and I will take an absurd example to illustrate the point. Supposing at the end of this debate my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) got so carried away and so angry—in a House of Commons governed by a charter containing rules of practical guidance—that he loses his temper and strikes the Secretary of State on the nose. There is uproar and a scene. Under the Secretary of State's rules the action my hon. Friend has taken is admissible as evidence but there is no action which can be taken. There are no legal teeth. There is nothing to be done about it. It is merely admissible as evidence. This legal futility is an indication of how, if we throw out the Goodman amendments in toto, we will end up with no safeguards at all.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Brian Walden: I know that the hon. Member is trying to present this absolutely fairly. In the interests of so doing he ought to make it clear that what he has said is not right. In no sense are common

law rights breached. What the Secretary of State is saying is that if a man chose to exercise those common law rights he could plead and have admissible as evidence any charter subsequently agreed. That is very different from a situation in which a man can do "nothing about it".

Mr. Aitken: I am no lawyer and nor is the hon. Member for Ladywood. I am advised that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby, who is a lawyer, hopes to take up this point and show that the effect of the Goodman amendments is to put legal teeth into the Bill and make this action actionable. Without these amendments it is a wishy-washy Bill.

Mr. Brian Walden: I am not saying that Lord Goodman will not have the whole matter settled by law. That would be the effect of accepting the Lords amendment. I am saying that that is not the only law involved. In no sense has a man forfeited his common law rights if we strike out the Lords amendment.

Mr. Aitken: If I may I will leave that point. I am pleased to concede a lack of legal expertise.
The real loser in this situation, if this Bill goes through with the Secretary of State's amendments, are the readers. They are the people who will be hurt most. Above all, this Bill is destroying the concept that Parliament has an obligation and indeed a duty to protect the individual's right to work, to free speech and to free access to the media. These rights can so easily be eroded if, by the passage of this Bill, one union can gain a monopoly position in the area of public communication.
The risk is great yet the safeguards required are relatively small. If this House is quite unable to put into this legislation some clause which properly protects the freedom of expression of British people we might as well all go home and shut up shop. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that those much-maligned lordly noses will do our job for us in another place.

Mr. Heffer: I do not want to keep the House long but I feel that I want to say something about this situation as one who has from time to time contributed to various journals in this country. I have not always found it easy to gain access


to some of these journals, especially some of our national newspapers. There has been quite a bit of argument or discussion or cajoling on occasions before I managed to get a piece in.
I should like to take up the argument that the losers will be the readers. That implies that the readers have a say on what goes into our national newspapers. That is a remarkable argument. Neither the newspaper readers nor I have ever understood that they have any say about the contents of a newspaper. The only way for readers to deal with the situation is to stop buying the newspapers. As national newspapers are in the hands of a small and select group, if readers stop buying one newspaper and start purchasing another, they are still not offered much choice.
Press freedom is important. I accept that. No Government supporter wants to see the Press controlled by any tyrannical force. I do not want to see the newspapers leaving the hands of their present millionaire owners and coming into the hands of the State or for all newspapers to be run by the State. I cannot read Russian but I am sure that the Soviet newspapers must be the most boring in the world. I should not like to see that situation in the United Kingdom.
No one suggests that we should move from one unfortunate situation to another. We must keep a balance. The situation is difficult and this debate has clearly indicated its complications. We all desire Press freedom. Many Government supporters recognise that that freedom is now extremely limited. Yet at the same time we do not want to move from that position to another which might be worse. That is our dilemma.
I do not think anyone has produced the final answer to the question of Press freedom. We must think about the ways of ensuring genuine Press freedom. For instance I should like the CBI and the TUC to own newspapers with which to put forward their views and beliefs. I should like to see the TUC owning a good national newspaper. I should like to see an official newspaper attached to the Conservative Party and another attached to the Liberal Party.
The political parties and other organisations should all have national daily

newspapers so that readers have a free choice in the newspaper they wish to buy. Even then there must be editorial freedom. We understand that. However, I believe that we are taking the matter much too far.
This evening one Front Bench spokesman was floored by the Secretary of State, who pointed out that the rules of the NUJ had been changed. When that union holds a ballot, the decision can only be overturned by another ballot. The Opposition case was destroyed. Since the NUJ must hold a ballot to overturn the decision of a previous ballot, the safeguard lies in the decision taken by the membership of the NUJ. Suppose that the majority of the NUJ decided by ballot on a certain policy, which was objected to by the Opposition. Ballots do not necessarily give the answers we want. There is another side to the ballot argument. The railwaymen's case is a case in point. Even under the Tory Industrial Relations Act 1971 the workers in different industries could hold ballots to decide whether they should belong to one union or another. We objected to the process, but that was part of the philosophy. The journalists as a profession could have taken a ballot to decide whether they should belong to the Institute of Journalists or the NUJ. That could have been done under the Tory legislation.
This is the nub of the argument. Journalists are not being forced to join trade unions. Obviously the matter must be considered, but I do not think that editors should be frightened of that. The terrible crisis foreseen by the Opposition is a remote possibility. It is never likely to occur. If I thought that contributors to magazines, national newspapers and local newspapers were to be excluded as a result of this Bill no one would have the right to express their point of view in a newspaper, I could not agree to the measure. I have written for newspapers ranging from the Catholic Herald to the Morning Star. As long as no editor says what I must write, or censors what I write, I shall continue to write for those newspapers.
Nothing in this legislation affects the question of the independent contributors. This is a bogy. It has been built up out of all proportion. Even some of my hon. Friends are infected by the fear


mistakenly emanating from the Opposition and the editors.
I think that the Secretary of State has fallen over backwards in order to placate the editors, hon. Members opposite and some of my hon. Friends. I say to him "Do not go any further." I think that he and the Government have gone far enough and that they should not give any further concessions. Indeed, in some respects they have gone too far and this is the end of the road. I am willing to support the Government tonight, but I hope that they will not go any further. We must not succumb to the bogy man fears which have been developed by hon. Members opposite.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. George Reid: After the acres of type and hours of debate devoted to the subject of Press freedom over the past year, it was a relief to see on the Notice Paper the amendment put down by the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam). It goes straight to the heart of the matter—freedom for editors and access for contributors, steering a sensible middle course between the excessive legalism of the Lords amendment and the rather grudging concessions of the Secretary of State. Essentially, the hon. Member for Gateshead's amendment recognises the editor's delicate position, the fact that in journalism the buck has to stop somewhere, and that in the editor's chair is a man who is dealing not only with his staff but with his proprietor and public while simultaneously coping with the legal demands made on him. For that reason I believe that the hon. Gentleman's amendment would be welcomed by a majority of members of my union, the National Union of Journalists.
We have heard a lot of talk tonight about threats to the Press and to Press freedom. But freedom of the Press is a public freedom. It does not belong to those who work in the Press—to the proprietors, the editors, the journalists or the compositors—it belongs to the public who have a fundamental interest in knowing that what they read is the product of free minds not restrained by any exterior forces.
That freedom has been abused by plenty of proprietors—Northcliffe and Beaverbrook and some today. My concern as a member of the NUJ, however,

is the increasing number of ideologues in the union who are seeking consciously to take control of their chapel, to gain editorial control over their publications and to determine what appears where, when and why. Many hon. Members have referred to the reasonable and responsible attitude of the vast majority of the 30,000 members of the NUJ, and of its general secretary, and I agree. But times are changing.
When I entered journalism, there was such a thing as the "associate member's card" which covered the position of the editor perfectly—the man who had gone through the ranks of the union and was now in the editorial chair. As an associate, he had a foot in the union, but his external legal position was recognised by the union. That situation no longer applies.
Recently, the Journalist, which carries the imprimatur of the NUJ as its house magazine, had an editorial calling for nationalisation of the Press. We have seen the blacking of non-union copy. In Scotland and England we have seen disciplinary action against editors. The London Freelance Branch issued a circular earlier this year containing the following note:
While these managements and editors control the Press and access to it, we can expect such access to be almost exclusively restricted to those 'experts' whose views are antagonistic to the Labour movement and the interests of the working people.
I may add that I have sympathy for that point of view both in regard to the Scottish National Party and the Labour Party. The motion went on:
When the columns of the Press and air waves are open to the Labour movement, we will obviously reconsider the matter.
That suggests a fair degree of penetration by ideologies. Surely the interests of the newspapers are primarily the interests of their readers. The job of Parliament in this situation is to defend the interests of the public and to hold the ring.
I turn now to the right of access by external contributors. It is fairly obvious that democratic life demands the widest dissemination of information and ideas as possible. We have seen examples already of local newspapers, threatened by the fact that only a union member could contribute, virtually going to the wall. Lots of people who have been sending in notes about gardening or chess or


shinty or whatever have been told that now the job can only be done by NUJ members, and the papers they have contributed to have been threatened with closure as a result. The same applies to specialist magazines taking articles from, for example, educationists, psychologists or psychiatrists, who can never be members of the NUJ as such. We need the widest access possible.
I turn to the amendments from the House of Lords in the name of Lord Goodman. These would not bring about a situation of liberty in chapels but they could well bring about a situation of licence. I sympathise with members of the National Union of Journalists who see contained in them a veiled threat to the union. It is not only editors who are to be covered by their wording but other persons "exercising editorial responsibility". Where does that responsibility stop in a chapel? Does it stop with the teaboy? Clearly the women's feature editor, the picture editor, the letter page editor and the crossword editor have editorial functions. If all these people were to be free of any obligation to join the union, the NUJ would lose strength. Few of us in the current situation appertaining to chapels would wish that to happen.
Finally, I come to the crunch of the matter. The guardians of the freedom of the Press are the editors. They have a privileged and at the same time rather burdensome position. To do their job they have to be free men. Naturally they are constrained by the need of their papers to survive and by considerations of law, but they must remain free from hidden influences of the type to which I have referred, and free from any threat to their own job security. They have a unique relationship with their staff. Their job is a unique two-way process. They carry legal responsibility for a group product. At the end of the day the editor is the guarantor of the freedom of all his collective workers to get on with their jobs without political or proprietorial interference. Free editors are essential to free journalism.

Mr. Bryan Magee: I am not a member of the National Union of Journalists, and under the rules of that union I am not eligible to join. But in case any hon. Member is under the impression that

the following constitutes an interest, perhaps I should mention that I write a monthly column for The Times, and contribute occasional articles to other papers. I am also a council member of the Critics's Circle, the long-established body in this country which represents critics of the performing arts. I mention in passing that some of the most distinguished and famous of the critics in this country are also not members of the NUJ, and not eligible to become members.
Those of us who have been concerned with this controversy have throughout agreed on one or two basic issues. We have agreed that the two key issues are editorial freedom and freedom of access. We have also agreed all along—and I am at one with the Secretary of State on this—that freedom of access is extraordinarily difficult even to define, let alone to guarantee. Because no one would be so foolish as to say that any individual, having written any article he likes on any subject he likes, ought to have the right to submit that article to any editor he likes and demand that the editor should publish it. That is an absurdity, and anyone who gives thought to this matter would agree that in material respects the editor must, in order to perform his function, have the right to reject articles.
Therefore, one problem that is central to this whole issue is how we can make freedom of access a reality while at the same time preserving the genuine freedom of the editor to pursue his editorial function. We can have freedom of access, and a free Press, only when we have an enormous multiplicity of newspapers, so that the individual who sends his article to one editor and has it turned down can send it to another. The same applies to the journalist who works on one newspaper and is sacked, for he can go and work on another.
These are not just theoretical considerations. They are everyday realities for hundreds of journalists and for everyone who writes for newspapers. This freedom can be threatened—indeed, in most societies of the world it is not only threatened but obviated—by the existence of any body of people that has the power to say that only what it approves of—or, to put it at its weakest, only what it does not disapprove of—can be published. That is the case in most societies throughout the world. It behoves the


House to remember that. It is not the case in this country. There is nobody who seriously regards the British Government as constituting a threat to the freedom of the Press in anything like that sense.
There is only one body in Britain which is so placed that it is within reach of getting into that situation; that is the National Union of Journalists. To say that is not to make an anti-union point. It is to state a fact. Interference with editorial freedom can and does come from proprietors. It comes also from advertisers, and from pressure groups of many other kinds. However, the proprietors are not members of a single national organisation that has the power to make and to implement a united policy. Neither are the advertisers, nor the other pressure groups. However, the National Union of Journalists is.
Those who are alarmed about this situation are not just enemies of the trade unions, sitting on the Opposition benches. As the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) rightly said, large numbers of members of the NUJ are alarmed about it. The hon. Member is a member of the NUJ, and I was pleased to hear him say that he thinks that many members of that union would support with enthusiasm the amendment on this question in the names of my hon. Friends and myself.
In recent months not one but dozens of members of the NUJ, who are also Labour voters, have written to or have visited me and expressed their concern on precisely this question. So let not my hon. Friends continue with the idea that only enemies of trade unionism, or enemies of the NUJ, or only people with Right-wing political or social views, are frightened about the possible power that could be put into the hands of the NUJ by the Bill.

Mr. Corbett: Would my hon. Friend agree that the biggest threat to the freedom of the Press comes not from any possibility of a closed shop but from closed publications?

Mr. Magee: I agree. The situation in this country is imperfect and very unsatisfactory. The freedom of the Press must depend on a multiplicity of papers. In this country we have nothing like that. I should like to see far more newspapers.

and a far wider spread of journals representing political views of all kinds, religious views of all kinds, if you like anti-religious views of all kinds. The greater the multiplicity, the better it is for freedom of expression.
The greatest threat to freedom of expression and the freedom of the Press in any society is to have one body, however benevolent it may be and however much we may agree with its views, getting into the position where it can exclude from publication expressions of view with which it does not agree.
The Secretary of State's amendment would put this power into the hands of the NUJ, his attitude being "We can trust it not to use that power." That is folly. If we are confident that the union will not use the power, why give the power to the union? The value of the amendment standing in the names of hon. Members and myself is that it would make it impossible for the union to exercise such a power.
There is general agreement that the two key requirements to maintain freedom of the Press are editorial independence and freedom of access. The whole point of what we might call "the Horam amendment" as against "the Goodman amendment" is that it lays down the guarantee of these two freedoms as the minimum conditions which any charter will have to satisfy if it is to meet the requirements of this House. We are not legislating. We are saying what we regard as being the fundamental, irreducible requirements that any charter must meet. If it does not have those two requirements in it, the charter will not be worth having, as it will not do the job of guaranteeing fundamental Press freedoms. If my hon. Friends take the view that those freedoms are not threatened, I cannot see why they should not go along with the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
I do not support the Goodman amendments as they stand. The trouble is that they are framed as if the only threat to Press freedom comes from the trade unions. That is plainly not so. The trouble with the Secretary of State's amendment to the Goodman amendments is that it would have the effect of guaranteeing Press freedom only to trade


union members. It is the mirror image of the same mistake.
We want a situation which is open to all members of society whether or not they are members of a union. I recognise the enormous service that my right hon. Friend has provided for the policies of this Government by helping to forge links with the trade union movement, and especially in recent weeks. Those links will be of enormous importance to the Government over the next few years. However, the good relations with the trade union movement on which effective government should be based, and is now effectively being based, must not be reached by our always giving way to union demands. The way to have good relations with the unions is not to say "Yes" to everything they ask for. After all, the unions are bargaining organisations. That is what they exist for, that is their function in life. Like all bargainers, they never start by asking for what they expect to get. They never start by asking for what they are prepared to settle for in the end. When my right hon. Friend agrees to their first demands I sometimes suspect that no one is more astounded than they are. They probably wonder what he is up to when he adopts that approach.
Some of my hon. Friends sitting near me may claim that my right hon. Friend has not done what I have suggested. Indeed, he has not, he has done something worse. The NUJ has not asked for what he proposes to give it. He is proposing to give it powers which it is not in the interests of our society to give it, and which it has not demanded.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Will my hon. Friend define the powers that my right hon. Friend proposes to give to the NUJ as against the whole of the trade union movement?

Mr. Magee: If the Bill is passed in its existing form it will empower the NUJ, if it so chooses, to insist on having editors in the closed shop. It has been fundamental to my speech that no single body should be put in a position of being able to achieve monopoly control of what goes into newspapers—namely, monopoly control of the editorial function. So my view is that we should not accept the Goodman amendments, but also that the

Secretary of State's amendment as it stands will not do. I hope, therefore, that the House will pass the amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. If that amendment is not accepted, I hope that as a second best we shall pass the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).

Mr. Adley: I almost hesitate to take part in the continuing debate between the various factions in the Labour Party on this issue as on so many others. I am speaking briefly in response to requests by working journalists of my acquaintance who have asked that the Goodman amendments be upheld as the best option that appears to be available at this rather late stage in what has been a long, complicated and technical argument on quite a simple matter.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee), from where he stood in the Chamber, courageously stated that even this Government should not always give way to the trade unions. It is the demands of a few people in the trades unions, whom I do not believe are representative at all of the rank and file of the trades unions, which are behind this continuing debate. The remarks that the hon. Member for Leyton has just made, about a charter, illustrate this point well.
It seems that we are to have a charter only when the Government decide that the law is not to be used to protect society against those from whom the Government, in their judgment, think society does not need protection. Rather than simply having the Community Land Bill why do we not have a Community Land charter? We are told by the Minister for Planning and Local Government that the Community Land Bill is merely a Bill to give local authorities certain powers. Of course, he says, they have not got to use those powers—they merely have them. If availability of power is enough, why have we spent so much time hammering that piece of legislation through against a great deal of informed criticism from outside?
The issue tonight in my view is a simple one, namely, will the Bill increase or decrease the freedom of the Press? I am not aware—I may be wrong—that there is a universal feeling among the


people of this country, especially those who buy newspapers, that at present the freedom of the Press is seriously in jeopardy. I do not believe that the Government have put forward any basic reasons for the need to shove this piece of legislation down the throats of the House and of the newspaper industry. I should have thought that if the Government were looking for a target, the laws of libel, for instance, might well be a better target on which they could concentrate their efforts than the target at which this Bill has been aimed.
I should like to stress the point made by the hon. Member for Leyton and, before him, the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid), about the possibility of the National Union of Journalists at some stage deciding who should or should not write for newspapers. I agree and accept that at present that may be a remote possibility.
I have tried to join two unions in the past year and I have been rejected by both.

Mr. Heffer: One has to have qualifications.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) from a sedentary position, says that one has to have qualifications. I tried to join Clive Jenkins' union. He recently said that he would like to represent Members of Parliament. However, he would not take me as a member of his union, although I understand that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) thought that Mr. Clive Jenkins was wrong in refusing my application for membership.
I applied for membership of the GMWU, and that was also turned down. Never let it be said that those two rejections had anything to do with politics—or did they? Of course, they did. They did not want a Conservative Member of Parliament in either of those trade unions.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Hear, hear.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Lady says "Hear, hear". She thinks it is funny. I put it to her that the situation of contributors to newspapers, who might at some future date find themselves barred from membership of the NUJ because of their membership of a political party, is not a

laughing matter. That is a situation which could well arise. The hon. Lady would do well occasionally not to sneer at comments from Conservative Members who, in spite of the remarks of the hon. Member for Leyton and his ridiculous charge that the Conservative Party is anti-trade union, may well only be opposed to the imposition of militant views, by a minority, on the trade union movement.

Mrs. Jeger: rose—

Mr. Adley: I shall give way when I have finished my point. I earnestly request hon. Members opposite to understand that trade unions in this country bring themselves into disrepute if they seek to deny to people who are not members of certain political parties membership of trade unions, and for no other good reason.

Mrs. Jeger: I was not laughing at what the hon. Gentleman said. What he said was very serious. The question of membership of a trade union has nothing to do with political parties. However, it has to do with training, experience, work and skills within the particular craft of the union one is seeking to join. I can say that as a member of the NUJ. I have been a working reporter for many years. It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that one can simply apply to join the trade union of one's fancy without having been through that apprenticeship, training, work and the acquisition of the necessary skills. That is all I was trying to convey to him.

Mr. Adley: How many more years than five must one serve in this House to qualify for membership of the ASTMS, Mr. Clive Jenkins having said that he would like it to act as the trade union for Members of Parliament? I recognise that the hon. Lady has been in this House a great deal longer than I have. My five years "apprenticeship" may not be long enough to qualify me to apply for membership of a trade union. But is she seriously suggesting that anybody who has been in a job for less than five years is not eligible to join a trade union which, in the words of its general secretary, has set itself up as the union to represent a given craft or trade—in this instance, Members of Parliament? There is political bias in certain unions and the hon. Lady would do well to recognise that fact.


The point of the whole discussion about the NUJ is the possibility that at some time members who hold views unacceptable to the NUJ might find themselves excluded from writing articles. It was not many months ago that we saw large blank spaces in newspapers throughout the country because the NUJ was blacking the contributions by certain people who were not members of that union.
The hon. Member for Walton has made one of his usual impassioned pleas about the evils of newspapers owned by millionaires, be they former members of the Parliamentary Labour Party or be they not. Many people own newspapers, and some of them are exceedingly wealthy. I do not have that detestation of people who have progressed in life, which seems to be the hallmark of the hon. Gentleman, who I might—

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman should refrain from making such statements about detestation of people because they are millionaires. I have never taken that view in my life, and never will. The argument is not about them being milionaires, but the fact that they are obviously trying to use the newspapers which they own to sustain a system of society in which they believe. The point is that they do not advocate another system of society or give unfettered access to those who do. There is no detestation of such people as individuals.

Mr. Adley: If the word "detestation" upsets the hon. Gentleman, I withdraw it. Perhaps a better way of describing him is as the obersturmbahnfurhrer of the envy and jealousy brigade on the benches opposite.
The hon. Member for Leyton wants more new newspapers built up. He wants more journals of specialist types started. The Scottish Daily News has not had a happy start, perhaps indicating that there is a lack of motivation, drive and special interest behind the newspaper to make it successful. What is needed if we are to have more newspapers is the creation of new enterprises by people who have the initiative, the determination and the drive to set them up, and if they make a lot of money jolly good luck to them. I recognise that there is a fairly wide gulf between the views of the hon. Member

for Walton and those which I hold. There is a fairly wide gulf between his views and those of many of his hon. Friends, but that is another matter.
9.0 p.m.
There is no perfect answer to life's problems. The hon. Gentleman admitted that he did not think much of Pravda. He imagined that Russian newspapers were fairly stodgy and he did not want a system of State control. In life we have somehow to find a compromise, but I do not believe that the deliberate shackling of editors is the sort of compromise that will help to ensure the freedom of the Press.
The hon. Gentleman complained that he could not get access to newspapers by which I presume he means that the fact that he could not get articles placed in certain newspapers had nothing to do with talent and everything to do with politics. He may, or may not, be right! I do not believe that in this country we have too many newspapers which deliberately present a totally one-sided view of life. But if we do, and if one is asked to choose, shall we say, between the Daily Telegraph and the Morning Star, I know which newspaper I should prefer, which freedom I should prefer.
The Secretary of State is, I believe, a sad figure, a man who used to be master of the House of Commons but is now the slave of a Government which I rather suspect he wishes at times he had not joined. I do not believe that this measure is worthy of him. It may be that the Goodman amendments are imperfect, but I hope that the House will accept them. If they are not accepted here tonight I hope that in another place they will be adhered to rigorously.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I rise to attempt to make it clear to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there are a number of hon. Members on this side of the House who feel that he has gone much too far in the amendment that he has put forward this evening.
I think we would agree that a good deal of nonsense has been talked, tonight, throughout the Committee stage, on Second Reading and on Report, about the whole question of the freedom of the Press. If we consider the recent referendum campaign, can anyone seriously suggest that in the debate on this great


issue we had a free Press in Britain which looked objectively at the arguments and gave every opportunity for every point of view to be expressed? My local newspaper said more or less in one of its editorials that the anti-Marketeers suggest that they ought to be given equal space in this debate. "But why should they?", it went on to ask.
My right hon. Friend has no doubt seen the Labour Party document on the Press and what it had to say. The working party made it clear, as I think others have, that
In effect, three large corporations now produce 80 per cent. of all national daily and Sunday newspapers sold in the United Kingdom and, in the overwhelming majority of cities, there is an effective local monopoly of news, sometimes in the same hands as the national Press.
The report went on to say:
A free Press, therefore, in the sense of a varied or a balanced Press is fast disappearing",
and many of us on this side of the House would support that view.
The document then lists those Members of the House of Lords, referred to this evening, who have considerable control over the Press. It has been suggested from the Opposition benches that we should look to them to defend our freedoms. No one with even a smattering of knowledge of this country's political history could seriously suggest that we should look to that other Chamber to defend the freedoms of the British people. Therefore we rebut this idea that we have a free Press. Nevertheless, at the same time we have to discuss what all these arguments about a free Press have to do with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill.
Those who have not done so should look at the proposed charter that my right hon. Friend is asking us to support this evening. It is, it is true, an amendment of the House of Lords position, but, nevertheless, the Secretary of State says that, while hoping there will be an agreement between the trades unions and the employers in the newspaper industry on a charter, if no such charter has been agreed, he will, if he gets a vote in the House of Commons, impose a charter on the parties concerned in 12 months' time or so.
It also goes on to suggest that this will be admissible as evidence. I know that

there are many on the Opposition benches who would like it to be much tougher in terms of admissibility of evidence and so on. Throughout the Committee stage I understood the Secretary of State to be saying clearly that he would welcome a charter freely negotiated between the trade unions and the employers in the newspaper industry, but he did not accept that it would be possible, practicable or acceptable to have a clause in the legislation or a code of practice or whatever it might be.
I should like to remind my right hon. Friend of what he said in the Committee:
That is why the Government were strongly in favour of the initiative taken by the National Union of Journalists whereby discussions should take place; discussions directed at devising not a law—not even a clause to be inserted, because that is not a satisfactory way of doing it but terms that could be put into the union membership agreement."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17th December, 1974; c. 98.]
I have not heard any justification from anyone this evening or in any previous debate as to why those in the Press should be isolated from normal collective bargaining, or why an exception must be made of this group because they happen to work for newspapers. It is not thought to matter that they are monopoly newspapers. What about television, radio and the whole field of education? Could not we have some alarming stories of the possibility of ASTMS or the Association of University Teachers being taken over by the Maoists or Trotskyists and demanding a closed shop in our universities, laying down that all they will teach is the "Words of Chairman Mao", or something like that? Is not that a possibility? It has not been mentioned.
What about Equity? What about the theatre and all the arts? Let us suppose that Equity starts laying down that actors must have a social conscience or inject social realism into Hamlet, or something like that. This is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hammered, and rightly so: if we make these exceptions, where do we draw the line? Why should the line be drawn at this particular point?

Mr. Whitehead: It is a dangerous line of argument to pray in aid the situation of radio and television, because they are controlled by statutory organisations and


if there were any form of take-over of any kind of the form of the BBC Licence and Agreement the Television Act, now the Sound Broadcasting Act, would make that impossible, whether or not that would be defined by some people as interference with the rights of collective bargaining, if collective bargaining is defined as exclusivity.

Mr. Thomas: If there was a closed shop in radio and television I would have to be convinced that they would be able to use a quite separate charter which was not attached by any provision to this legislation and that the charter could be used to define their position.
My right hon. Friend insisted that if he took the line of action suggested he would be making an exception and the question would then arise as to where the line should be drawn. It is wrong to say to a group of trade unionists that just because they work for a particular category of employers they have to be isolated from the rest of the working class and trade union movement in terms of collective bargaining.
Let me move on to the definition of a union membership agreement. I fear that during our discussion hon. Members on both sides of the House have not taken account of the actual definition. The 1974 Act says
'union membership agreement' means an agreement or arrangement which—

(a) is made by or on behalf of, or otherwise exists between, one or more independent trade unions and one or more employers or employers' associations; and
(b) relates to employees of an identifiable class".

Earlier we passed an amendment to clarify what was meant by "an identifiable class ".We have heard that the NUJ has made it clear—although its policy might, of course, change—that it would not demand that editors should join the NUJ, although editors are members and there are many closed shop situations such as on The Guardian and many other newspapers. The definition of a union membership agreement is expressly set out so that if it relates to employees of an identifiable class ipso facto it can identify those who are excluded from the agreement.

There is no difficulty at all if the newspaper industry wants to identify editors as not being covered by the closed shop agreement. However, one or two hon. Members on the Opposition side have made it clear that that is not what they want. They want to extend the exemption to sub-editors, to sports editors and to gardening editors. The pressures from the employers are aimed to provide the opportunity to give job descriptions to a whole range of jobs and to try to free those doing the jobs from pressure to join a trade union.

Mr. Adley: In view of the hon. Member's constituency will he answer one particular question? A few months ago Blackboy's Diary in the Bristol Evening Post contained large white gaps because many of the contributions were from people who were not members of the NUJ, although they were members of the IOJ. Does the hon. Member support or reject that situation?

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Thomas: Every trade union has the right to adopt a policy in respect of the work for which its members have been trained and in respect of those who take that work from their members or where the employer gives it to outside workers. That is a legitimate part of collective bargaining. The NUJ has every right to have a policy about contributions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seriously suggesting that it should allow the number of outside contributors to rise to the point at which its members become redundant. Many have become unemployed—I am not saying because of outside contributors.
I understand that, in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers—one of my hon. Friends will be taking up another case on which we disagree—there was a dispute. In a dispute, a union can use whatever weapons are available—

Mr. Adley: It was an inter-union dispute.

Mr. Thomas: I do not care whether a dispute is an inter-union one or between union and employer: it is, in my judgement, a legitimate form of trade union industrial action and has nothing to do with a union membership agreement.

Mr. Adley: It has everything to do with it.

Mr. Thomas: It has not. If the NUJ has 50 per cent., 60 per cent., or 70 per cent. membership, it could still take that action. A closed shop is not necessary. Plenty of unions take such action even with a minority membership. It is no good pretending that this is linked with the closed shop. It happened before there was one and would happen if there were no closed shop.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing—he seems to be—that the National Union of Journalists would have the right to decide what level of outside contributions it would prohibit? If it decided, for example, that The Times must not publish articles from Members of Parliament on its left centre page, would he defend its enforcing that decision against the will of the editor and possibly against the public interest?

Mr. Thomas: I do not know what is meant by the public interest in this connection. We are told the public have an interest but it seems they have no rights, that only editors, outside contributors and proprietors have rights. To answer the question: yes, I believe that a union would be failing its membership if it did not have a policy about the amount of work, presumably for its members, which was going to others. That is not to say that one would go from that to argue that it would decide how much and discriminate among individuals. On the other hand—some of my hon. Friends may not like this—the Labour Party document also called for more industrial democracy for the Press and more involvement of workers in decision-making. This may cut across the question of outside contributions and where they come from.
I appeal to the Secretary of State, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), not to go further than he has gone. A number of my hon. Friends put down an amendment to reject the whole of Lords Amendment No. 7 which was not called. The Secretary of State convinced me that the best approach was for the unions and the employers to try for a voluntary charter. It should not be part of the Act, whether as a clause or as a code of practice. It would be quite wrong for those working in the newspaper industry to be isolated from the general stream

of the working class and trade union movement and denied rights of free collective bargaining which even this charter denies them to some extent.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): May I appeal to the House for shorter speeches if possible? The debate has already been going on for more than three hours.

Sir David Renton: In view of what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall detain the House for only a very short time, and I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) will forgive me if I do not follow him.
We find ourselves in a paradoxical position. On one hand we are supposed to be the great protectors of the liberties of the people. Sometimes we succeed in being so with Acts like the Habeas Corpus Act, but on the other hand we find that most of the liberties of the people have been handed down through common law and custom, and, when we have legislated, it has been by means of interference with liberty. There has been a good deal of interference with liberty in legislation in recent years, sometimes justified, sometimes not.
Tonight we find ourselves in a habeas corpus position. It has been admitted and agreed on both sides that, if there is a threat to the freedom of the Press, it can come most easily from those working in trade unions of Press employees. This is the stark reality of the situation. We suffered in this way in my own constituency not long ago with the Sharman dispute. By refusing to accept advertisements for their local papers some employees interfered with the freedom of the Press and did so simply because their union had ordered them not to accept those advertisements. This is the sort of thing that should warn us. Fortunately the unions concerned took stock of public opinion and what was said in this House.
The Secretary of State has put us in the position of having to make a very stark choice tonight. He has said he does not want Parliament to pass an enforceable law to ensure the freedom of the Press. He wants a law that merely acknowledges that a charter, the contents of which are unknown to us, may one day


be made, and may one day, after inter-union discussions, do something to preserve the freedom of the Press. I do not find that a satisfatcory situation. I much prefer the solution proposed in another place by Lord Goodman, which, as the Secretary of State has said, was put forward for the best of motives and with complete sincerity. The Secretary of State, while prepared to use the Goodman amendment as a framework or skeleton in order to have something on which to hang his idea about a charter, has withdrawn from the amendment any teeth which would make it an enforceable law. This admirable effort on the part of Lord Goodman, supported by a good majority in the other place—from both sides—is to become merely a tooth-les skeleton. That is the way in which the right hon. Gentleman proposes on this occasion to pretend to protect the liberties of the people. It is not good enough.

Mr. David Marquand: Most of the speeches so far have been concerned with the first two amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and myself. I want to concern myself solely with the third, dealing with the applicability of the charter rather than its contents. Before doing so there are one or two general comments I wish to make about the considerations which make it necessary to widen the applicability of the charter in the way we seek to do.
We are discussing a quite revolutionary departure in this country's history. Most countries of the western world—I think I am right in saying all countries with written constitutions—have got legal safeguards for the freedom of the Press. This country has not. If this Bill is passed into law it will be the first time in the history of this country that Parliament has taken any view as to what constitutes freedom of the Press and what are the necessary conditions for that freedom. We are therefore talking about a revolutionary, valuable and healthy development in British history.
One of the reasons why I could not possibly support the so-called Goodman amendments is that the criteria contained in them for what should count as freedom of the Press are ludicrously narrowly drawn and appear to be directed

solely against possible threats to freedom from the journalists' unions. This is only one possible source of interference with the freedom of the Press. The amendment my right hon. Friend is moving to the contents of the charter in which he seeks to state that the charter shall have to include such matters as the offence of:
improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment, or criticism
is a remarkable and important step forward.
Those of my hon. Friends who believe that my right hon. Friend has gone too far should think twice before saying that. My right hon. Friend is saying, for the first time in our history, that it is an infringement of the freedom of the Press for there to be:
improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment, or criticism".
This is an important step forward and there should not be any difference of opinion on the Labour benches about the desirability of inserting that amendment.

Mr. Tom Litterick: I follow the significance of my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope he will accept criticism in the spirit in which it is offered. The operative phrase needed to make his judgment of this Bill significant would be
pressure from any source at all.
That phrase is not present. The phrases which crop up again and again in the Lords amendment give the game away. The amendment is aimed at trade unions which are defined as the only possible threat. If the phrase I suggest were to be incorporated we might be talking about the real issue. At the moment we are doing nothing like that.

Mr. Marquand: I do not want to be led too far astray. If my hon. Friend will listen to my speech I hope to be able to persuade him that the amendment dealing with the applicability of the charter will deal with pressure from proprietors.
We have to ask whether the amendments put forward by my right hon. Friend go far enough to meet the ends he seeks to achieve. He has gone a long way. If the Bill finally results in an agreed charter with these principles incorporated in it my right hon. Friend will deserve a great amount of credit.


9.30 p.m.
Those of us who have been involved in negotiations with the Minister should pay tribute to the way in which he responded to our point of view and sought to meet the representations from different quarters. I do not think that he has gone far enough to protect one of the central issues in the argument. I refer to the question of access by outside contributors who are not journalists, who are not eligible to be members of a journalists' union, and who do not have any contract of employment with a newspaper, but who are simply outside contributors. The protection of their interests is a vital matter of public concern, for the reasons put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam). I do not think that the amendments dealing with the ways in which the charter can be quoted go far enough to protect outside contributors' interests.
I strongly object to the Goodman approach to enforceability. That approach will lead us down a disastrous blind alley. It is an attempt to do for Press freedom what the Conservative Party tried to do for industrial relations generally in its ill-fated 1971 Act. The lesson of history is that that Act was a disastrous failure. If we try the Goodman approach we shall poison and embitter relations in the newspaper industry between the journalists' union and the other parties in the industry and the print unions and the rest of the industry.
The only safeguard of the freedom of the Press is the actions of those engaged in it. If we poison and embitter relations in the industry we shall not protect the freedom of the Press. On the contrary, we shall undermine the freedom of the Press.
I do not accept the Goodman approach that the right way to secure the enforceability of the charter is to make it an offence to break the charter, or to make it possible for someone to take action against another party for breaking it.
The Minister laid down the ways in which the charter can be used in legal proceedings too narrowly. He said that the charter could be quoted in evidence and could be taken into account by a tribunal or a court of law in only three

ways. It can be taken into account or quoted in evidence if a professional journalist, not an outside contributor, takes action against an employer for breach of contract. Secondly, it can be quoted in evidence and taken into account by the courts if a member of the union takes action against the union. Thirdly, it can be quoted in evidence if an editor has been wrongfully dismissed and takes action before an industrial tribunal. That does nothing to help the outside contributor who does not have a contract with his employer. The outside contributor is not a member of the union. The provision about possible actions between members of a union does not concern the outside contributor and does not offer him protection. I suppose the right of editors to quote the charter if they have been unfairly dismissed might occasionally involve what the Minister has attempted to do about the use of outside contributors, but that will not occur very often. Outside contributors are not protected by that provision.
Our amendment seeks to give the protection of the charter to the outside contributor in so far as the law allows the outside contributor to have any recourse to the courts, as well as giving it to the classes laid down in my right hon. Friend's amendment. I emphasise that it is not a question of giving anyone new rights of action against the union which they did not possess before. People can already take common law action against a union for all sorts of reasons. If an outside contributor is maliciously denied the right to have his article printed in the paper by an NUJ chapel, he now has the common law right to take action against the union. But my right hon. Friend's amendment makes it impossible for that person to use the charter as part of the ground for his action and to have the court take the charter into account. Our amendment does not give new rights. It is saying that if anyone uses his common law rights in any of the areas the Bill covers, it will be possible for him to quote the charter in evidence and for the court to take the charter into account.

Mr. George Cunningham: What possible common law right would an outside contributor have against a union for taking some action, so long as that action was not a criminal offence or a tort?

Mr. Marquand: If the union were actuated by malice of some kind against a contributor, he would be able to take action against that union, but under our amendment he would be able in his action also to quote the charter in evidence and have it taken into account by the court when the issue was decided.

Mrs. Renée Short: It might, of course, be a rotten article.

Mr. Marquand: It might be, but the court could decide whether that was the motive.

Mr. Lee: Is not my hon. Friend trying to invent a new tort?

Mr. Marquand: No. I am merely saying that the charter could be quoted. There have been a number of cases in our legal history in which people have taken action against others who have tried to exclude them arbitrarily or unfairly from membership of a union, and the judges have had the duty to decide whether the action complained of was against public policy. Our amendment gives guidance to the judges in such a case as to what constitutes public policy. We say, "This is Parliament's view of what constitutes public policy".
This is not an anti-union amendment. It does not create any danger of new actions being taken against the NUJ which cannot be taken at the moment. All it says is that, where common law rights already exist, a person who feels he has ground for action under that common law against, perhaps, a proprietor who maliciously and frivolously tries to prevent his article from appearing in the Press, or against the NUJ for trying to interfere with his copy, will be able to quote the charter in evidence.
As far as I understand it, my right hon. Friend said that there was really no point in our amendment because it was already covered, that the three limiting cases which he puts forward in his amendment are simply examples of the sort of thing that might arise and do not exclude anything else. I am not a lawyer any more than he is, but I am told that normally if a statute lays down three sorts of proceedings to which its provisions apply, it is understood by the courts that it is not intended to apply to other proceedings.

Otherwise why define them in that way? Why not simply leave it as we would leave it under our amendment, that in any proceedings that can be brought in this matter the charter can be quoted in evidence? If my right hon. Friend is right that our amendment, as it were, is unnecessary, at the very least it is harmless and he should be able to accept it. If it is not the case that it is unnecessary and if there are other proceedings in which it might be relevant to quote the charter, why should it not be quoted? If there are any other such proceedings in which my right hon. Friend believes that the charter should not be quoted, what are they?
My right hon. Friend has to resolve this dilemma. Either our amendment is harmless or it is necessary. I hope that he will accept this as a useful and constructive step forward in making the charter, which all Labour Members agree is the right solution to the problem, more effective than it is in the amendment which he has tabled. I also hope that those Conservative Members who believe that the right way to give teeth to the charter is to go down the Goodman path and make it possible for people to be sued in the courts for breaking the charter will think twice before they take that road.
The lesson of the history of the past few years is that that course will do more harm than good. There is no need for it. Existing common law remedies cover the matter and our amendment offers a solution to the problem which should be acceptable to all hon. Members.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: It is with great regret that I find myself at odds this evening with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for whom I have the greatest respect and regard. I hope that I have the reputation in this House for being independent enough to speak my mind when need warrants it. I shall do so this evening and vote accordingly, if necessary. It will depend on what my right hon. Friend does.
Freedom of speech and expression, which includes freedom of the Press, is an essential pillar of our democratic society. If it is eroded, we shall go down the slippery path to authoritarianism—the sad slippery path. I want to guard against that at all costs.


First, I shall put a spoke in the wheel of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) who opened the debate for the Opposition. He is afraid, as many people are afraid that the Bill as it stands will force editors to become members of the union; that is, a closed shop.
I am interested in the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I have no special interest; I am just interested in it. That federation recently wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rather than to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In its letter it said that:
Editors are regarded as the guardians of the free press, and to fulfil their rôle they must be free to do so without political or proprietorial interference. If they are compelled to become full union members, and act in any manner which displeases the union, they could be expelled and become unemployable in the profession.
I agree with that entirely. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote back saying:
The legislation will not require that editors, or anyone else who writes for the media, should be union members, and no union is given the right to demand that a closed shop should be established.
9.45 p.m.
If that is so, why not embody it in the Bill and ensure that there is no necessity for a closed shop? That is exactly what the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) and others does. It says:
right of editors to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union".
That is why I have come down absolutely in favour of that amendment rather than in favour of the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and others, which does not include that. There is no reason why that provision should not be included. It would safeguard editors against having to join a trade union and form a closed shop.
I come next to the question of freedom of access. My right hon. Friend's amendment to line 17 is pure waffle. It does nothing to preserve freedom of access. Freedom of access must be preserved. I appreciate that there is a fear that the right of editors to commission and publish

any article might be misused. I suggest an alternative. For the words
the right of editors to commission and publish any article
there should be substituted the words
to commission and publish articles from non-union contributors".
That would fit the Bill. It would at least allay the fears of those who feel that contributors who are non-union members would be excluded from contributing their articles to a paper. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that, perhaps as an amendment to an amendment, and to yield to the strong feeling of hon. Members on this side.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I support the amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and others.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will realise that in an earlier manifestation you had occasion to take very critical action against me as I was the editor of a journal in which you were mentioned by an anonymous contributor in the most defamatory way. I have forgotten the name of the contributor. I did not give his name to you, but you took very vigorous action against me.
I am not a member of the National Union of Journalists, although I contribute to newspapers both in Britain and in other countries—in ever-increasing numbers, I am glad to say. The question which was presented most ably and vigorously by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) concerned a hypothetical situation; namely, that in a situation of social crisis the members of the NUJ, by virtue of their position within the media of information, would have a power totally disproportionate to their numerical strength and could exercise that power to seek to impose a totalitarian system upon the country.
Most of the authoritarian Socialist systems that have been imposed upon reluctant people in the last decade have not been imposed by—to use the words used by my right hon. Friend—57 varities of Trotskyites, Maoists or whatever else it may be. They have been imposed by soldiers, by armies. So, if we are to shiver with fear, let us, in the light of history, shiver with fear whenever we see a uniformed soldier and not whenever


we confront a fully-paid-up member of the NUJ.
I have no reason to love the National Union of Journalists. I was kicked out of that union in circumstances which were certainly not to its credit but entirely within its rules. As a result of being ill I had neglected to pay my subscription. There were certain other accounts that I neglected to pay. The Midland Bank, bless and preserve it, was far more generous to me than the NUJ. When I attempted to rejoin the union it was decided that I was not eligible. Let us make no mistake about it; that was entirely within the rights of the members of that union. Although I have every reason to have a strong prejudice against the NUJ, I cannot take seriously the view that the union is about to be captured by the enemies of democracy with intent to destroy the freedom of the Press and to liquidate outside contributors such as myself.
I speak as a fairly well known and fairly widely read outside contributor. Judging by my correspondence, I am read mostly by Conservative Members and not by my hon. Friends. I must point out that there are certain responsibilities which cannot be written into a charter which outside contributors must accept as a kind of self-denying ordinance. I would never in any circumstances, even if I obtained real hard news—and occasionally I stumble into it—use the column that I am privileged to occupy once a month in The Times to purvey such news. In so doing I would be depriving a craftsman of work. I do not think that outside contributors should do that.
We are entitled to give our opinion on what is already in the public domain. We are entitled, as most of us are expected to do, to entertain the public rather than to inform them. I do not believe that the NUJ is wrong in any sense if it registers an objection if some of us in a position to receive hard news incorporate it in columns which are supposed to be columns of opinion. We should not be in business to deprive craftsmen of any part of their jobs. I do not believe that members of the NUJ who have decided by ballot—the Secretary of State has shown that the ballot can be reversed only by another

ballot—to take a reasonable course of action should now be indicted because at some future time, in a future hypothetical situation, they might be captured by about 27 thugs. I do not think that we should talk about the Bill or the dangers to Press freedoms in those terms.
In making my final point, I speak as someone who has not only disagreed rather vigorously with my right hon. Friend before but who has actually worked for him. I believe that I was the biggest nuisance he ever had in his employ. However, that is past history. I emphasise that the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North takes complete care of all the objections that have been raised as to the operation of the Bill and the charter that will emerge from the discussions that have taken place during the Bill's passage. It takes complete care of the special position of editors. If anyone associated with me in a union or in my party pointed the pistol at the head of any editor to force him to join any union I would repudiate such action. My hon. Friend's amendment takes complete care of that possible situation.
The amendment also protects the interests of outside contributors, although I expect such contributors to observe certain self-imposed ground rules as I do myself. I think that it is a constructive amendment to what is already a constructive amendment. Those who imagine that by trying to bring the law into this sort of situation they are protecting the freedom of the Press should understand that if the situation in journalism is as potentially dangerous as they imagine it to be, there will be no law passed in this House that can stop it from escalating. There is no charter that will not be torn up by the revolutionaries, if they exist in sufficient quantities to be able to do that. I do not believe that they exist in such numbers in the NUJ. Whilst I have no reason to have great affection for that union, I believe in what it stands for in the light of the ballot decision it has recently taken.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: Like the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher), I do not think that there is a band of men spread throughout the NUJ who deliberately intend to subvert the newspaper industry.


No one imagines that. I believe that from various sources in varying degrees our Press is in some danger of having its freedom eroded. If I had to list the most important single source I should say it was the closure of newspapers due to economic pressure. Indeed, I wish that we were talking about that and about a Bill for the freedom of the media. I wish that we did not have this Bill, but had a different Bill in a different situation.
Let us recognise that although there is the danger of closure and of financial strangulation and some danger, sometimes, from proprietors—I think greater in the past than now, because economic forces grip them also—there is some danger, in certain situations, from journalists' unions acting in their own defence, cutting people out of contributions or trying to influence the policy of the paper. It does not happen often. It is not prevalent, but the danger exists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) put his finger on the matter when he pointed out that in a declining industry he would support a policy by the NUJ, if it agreed to it, in a particular chapel, to have, if necessary, no outside contributions whatever. If that happened it would limit the freedom of the Press and it would constitute a danger.
If there was no danger my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not have told us that he intends to set up a charter. If there was no danger he would not be saying that. However, he says that we have to have a charter. We are not in disagreement about this or about the nature of freedom, which is to have many newspapers able to put their own free editorial point of view. We are in agreement that it can be threatened in one or two ways, one of which we are trying to combat by this measure.
The only issue remaining is whether the House should give some indication of what the charter should or should not include. As far as I can see, that is the only issue that remains before us.
I should have thought that the charter would be a difficult thing to draw up, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am sure, will agree, if it does not contain some defence of editorial freedom and access it is not

worth having as a charter. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would want it to include those things, and would not accept it as a charter if it did not. In the circumstances, all that he is saying is, "I think that the charter should include the same points as are in your amendment, but do not say it. Do not put it in the Bill. Do not write it down." Why not? When I have listened to him speak in the House on other occasions his only argument has been, "If you write it in you make it more difficult to negotiate You upset them. You frighten or annoy them." If anything would upset or worry me about the freedom of the Press it would be if that were true. If it were true that the NUJ were so teetering on the verge of rejecting these principles that it would be frightened by the House making any point of this kind, I believe that the danger would be greater than is the case.
I am surprised that my right hon. Friend should tell the House "The two sides will negotiate a charter, but, hush, do not let the House of Commons say what it regards as the minimum requirements of the charter." I cannot understand him when he say that. I can think of him in a previous incarnation of only a few years back when he would have stood in the Chamber and said, "Is it to be said to us, the sovereign legislature of this country, that we are not to pronounce on this matter? Is it that we are to go to outside parties and say 'Protect the freedom of our Press, protect your rights, come together, because we have to make the commitment.'"? All we are asking in our two amendments is that this House shall exercise its normal right of representing the public, the readers of the Press. The charter will be worthless unless it contains these two points.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) finished so suddenly that he left me speechless. I will try to sustain


that position as nearly as I can and still discharge the duties which I suppose I must perform at the end of this debate. I will speak as briefly as possible and comment upon what has been said. This debate is a refutation of the view which my hon. Friend was attributing to me—that in some way or other I am not in favour of the House of Commons pronouncing on these matters.
The House of Commons has done very well today. That is one reason why I believe in the House of Commons. Debates of this character, when we are not subject to a Government who have closed their minds in advance—[Interruption.] I have always believed in the proposition that as often as possible—of course, it cannot be done all the time—Ministers should listen to a debate and reply to it taking into account what has been said.

Sir David Renton: rose—

Mr. Foot: I will give way, but I want to get a word in first.
At the beginning of the debate I said, although it may have been a most extraordinary utterance, that I would listen to the debate and make up my mind, or that of the Government, in view of what was said. I have done that and I propose to reveal it to the House as soon as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to do so.

Sir David Renton: The right hon. Gentleman claims to have an open mind. Will he bear in mind that the House is waiting for him to show his open-minded-ness on the closed shop?

Mr. Foot: I have already expressed my view on that matter. I have tried to disabuse hon. Members of the idea that I have some passion in favour of the closed shop. That is not so. As I said earlier, I have a passion to try to get rid of the Industrial Relations Act, but that is a different matter.
I turn first to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) and his amendment on the subject of the admissibility of evidence. Admissibility is a very different matter from enforceability, as he acknowledged
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas)

expressed his doubts, suspicions and qualms about the charter being admissible in evidence in any form. I will come later to his general proposition about having a charter included in the Bill in any form whatsoever. I shall seek to reply to that point.
I do not think that anyone in any quarter of the House should have any qualms about the charter, once it is established, being admissible in evidence. But I think it is a reasonable thing to happen. That is what happens with highway codes and other codes which may be established under different Acts of Parliament. They are admissible in different forms. Indeed, as I understand it—I am no lawyer, like many others who have spoken—they are admissible if they are relevant.
It is partly because of the general admissibility of such evidence that I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield over-rated the significance of his amendment. I do not believe that it has the full significance that he suggests. However, it is true that some contributors might be embraced in his amendment who might conceivably be excluded under these provisions, although we have racked our brains to discover circumstances in which that might be the position. We have not found any circumstances that indicated that, but it is conceivable. Therefore, he says, his amendment is harmless on my reckoning or it is necessary, and which is it? I think that it is harmless, and so I shall take it. But I take it subject to what I have said about its harmlessness, and I am sure that the courts will pay due attention to what I say. I believe that the charter could be invoked in all proceedings where it is relevant, whether or not we have stated it in the Bill.
On that basis, if the House will permit my hon. Friend's amendment to be carried the Government will accept it. I do not think that it makes a vast improvement to the Bill. I do not think that it alters it greatly. It does not alter the Bill from our intention, and in some respects I think the fact that we have spelled out in the Bill the occasions when the charter could be invoked and its admissibility could be invoked is of assistance to the general debate.
Now I come to the amendments of my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead,


West (Mr. Horam) and Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). It has been suggested that there is not much difference between these two amendments, but I think that there is a considerable difference between them as was illustrated by the debate, particularly when my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian laid stress on the rights of contributors, and that is a theme that has run through all these debates.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West leaves out any recognition of or reference to contributors, and if he were to vote for that amendment he would vote for one that did not deal with that subject. Although the matter may be partly dealt with in the harmless amendment that I have accepted, it would be an extraordinary state of affairs if my hon. Friends, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, who always sees these matters so much more clearly than the rest of us, decided that they would go slap into the Lobby to vote for an amendment which specifically does not carry out what my hon. Friend has been complaining about. I do not think that that is a very good reason for voting for the Gateshead amendment.
I am not saying this in a fiercely critical sense, because I appreciate that my hon. Friend, like other hon. Members, has not had a great deal of time in which to put down the amendment. I do not think that that is a complaint against the Government, or against anybody, and by having discussed these matters in the House today we have been able to clear up many of these points.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead that, partly because it leaves out contributors, partly for the other reasons that I stressed earlier, partly because the reference to editors is made in an unqualified manner, partly because, if passed in that form, it would greatly injure the prospect of securing any charter, I hope that he will not move his amendment. I think that that is the best solution, but if he does move it, I shall have to ask the House to reject it for the reasons that I have stated.
Now I come to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North. His amendment is very

different from that put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, for the reasons that he said. First, it does not have the overtones of anti-unionism which one finds in the Gateshead amendment. I am sure that that was not done on purpose, but the amendment has that inference, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North insisted. Also, as he emphasised, there are many other differences between his amendment and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West.
We believe that his amendment is a very considerable improvement and goes near to solving the problem, but we should like to look at the wording carefully.
In some respects we do not think that the amendment quite carries through everything that is intended, because it is qualified in another sense; the rights of the editors stated there are qualified by reference to the agreement itself. We shall look at the amendment and see whether it is satisfactory in the present form or whether we wish, while still retaining the principle of it as now stated, to qualify it or to frame the words in a somewhat different way when it goes to another place.
Subject to that, we shall accept the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North, if he moves it, and ask the House to support it and add it to the other amendments that we shall then be proposing.
I believe that that is a sensible approach. I hope it will not cause any trouble to any of my hon. Friends in any quarter, though certainly I hope that it will cause great trouble to the Opposition. By adopting this sensible approach I believe that we shall be carrying out more skilfully and more purposefully what had already been intended by the Government. Indeed, when it is suggested that we must have an arrangement whereby the charter, whatever else it deals with, covers two specific subjects—the position of editors and the question of access—that is quite right. But that is all in our original amendment. In accepting the amendment of the hon. Member for Derby, North we are, therefore, fulfilling what we had originally intended—subject, as I have already said, to the fact that we wish to look at it in the House of Lords a bit later.


Turning to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West, I fully accept the view he expressed about the charter, in the sense that he quoted remarks that I had made earlier about the way in which this question should be approached, and how we wished to keep the law out of this battle.
My hon. Friend said that the charter might, in some form or another, be an interference with free collective bargaining. I do not accept that view, and certainly that is not the view of the National Union of Journalists. The union has been strongly in favour of the charter all along. Part of the reason for their being strongly in favour of it is that their own code of conduct—which they had before any of this arose—embraces most of the ideas in the charter itself. It does not embrace them all, because there are some matters, such as the position of the editors, that were not dealt with in the code of the journalists. That was one of the specific matters referred to the journalists in the ballot that they have recently held.
I am sure that the National Union of Journalists does not regard the charter approach to this subject as one that interferes with its rights as a trade union. If the charter were to be made enforceable by legal means, I would entirely agree with what has been suggested, but the Government have resisted this throughout. We have had major pressure from all other quarters, sustained from the Opposition benches tonight, although with wilting effect, because there has not been a very powerful assault from them. It rather seems that they have given up. If that is so, I think they are very wise, because more and more as the debate has proceeded, we have seen how unwise it is to think that problems such as these can be solved by the cumbrous and awkward legisative apparatus that Lord Goodman has served up to us.
The first thing we should be doing tonight in accepting the Government's amendments is to reject the whole of that apparatus. In that sense I believe that we are fulfilling the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Lee: May we take it as an assurance that if an attempt is made by a

majority in another place to reverse our decision the Government will then deal with the other place?

Mr. Foot: Do not tempt me too far. Let us get this Bill through the House of Lords and then consider these questions in the proper way. I want to see this Bill on the statute book as speedily as possible, not only in the interests of the journalists but because the Bill is the final measure for wiping out the 1971 Act. Already many months have passed during which the Bill should have been on the statute book.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said that nothing much had happened and that we need not worry. All the dire prophesies that I had made of what might occur if that measure had stayed on the statute book had not come to pass, he said. Maybe it is because we have been improving the industrial climate in other spheres too. As long as the arbitrary exclusion clause, on which the Government had such a good majority earlier today, remains the law of the land of course there are dangers asociated with the kind of actions which spring from the 1971 Act, and for that reason I eagerly await the time when this Bill will be carried into effect.
The House of Commons has illustrated that whatever the differing shades of emphasis there may be between us none of us can accept the Goodman method of dealing with this problem. We are all determined to vote against that method, and whatever hesitations and reservations we may have we believe that the charter method is the right way to proceed. Therefore when we vote for these Government amendments the House will be giving all the encouragement it can to the NUJ, to the editors and to the others concerned to come together to try to secure the charter we have always wanted. When that objective is achieved we shall in some respects have a better protection for the freedom of the Press than has ever existed in this country. The Opposition asked about this appalling fear, this idea that the NUJ would exercise its mammoth monopoly and deny complete access to the newspapers. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth was wise enough to say that this was a very remote possibility. That was not the frenzied way in which the


situation has been portrayed in the newspapers. There have been no leading articles in the Daily Express, The Times and other newspapers referring to a remote possibility. They have almost been talking about Hitler marching down Fleet Street.
If we carry through the Government's proposals for dealing with this problem and if we can sustain support for the freedom of the Press generally and, in particular, among journalists and editors, if we can sustain the kind of momentum which has been displayed on this subject over the last few months, we shall remove that remote possibility from the horizon altogether. I hope that the House will not be guided by those hobgoblins, but will accept that we have made progress in securing protections for the freedom of the Press which do not involve the dilemma which the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth presented. He said that we have to choose between the freedom of the Press and the principles of trade unionism.

Mr. Hayhoe: No.

Mr. Foot: No, I know that the hon. Member said that we have to choose between freedom of the Press and the closed shop—

Mr. Hayhoe: The sanctity of the closed shop.

Mr. Foot: Yes, "the sanctity of the closed shop" is a phrase in the mouths of Conservative Members which they use to try to reassert the 1971 Act ideas. Nothing could be more dangerous than to say to people, especially trade unionists, that the freedom of the Press is opposed to their interests. Trade unionists have as much interest in the freedom of the Press as anyone else and they have shown a better spirit in sustaining it than many other sections of the community.
So for hon. Members opposite or the House of Lords to try to draw a distinction between freedom of the Press and the interests of trade unionists, two freeddoms—the freedom to write and speak freely and the freedom to combine—which have had to be fought for mainly by trade unionists is to seek to damage the cause of trade unionism and that of the freedom of the Press. We on this side stand for both.

Mr. Brittan: After many hours of debating the freedom of the Press it is easy to forget the context of the debate and how the anxieties of the freedom of the Press arose in the first place. The Bill is not fundamentally about the Press but about industrial relations. One of its effects was to encourage the spread of the closed shop. It was at that point—late in the day, it has been said—that the Press realised that the Bill was likely to encourage the closed shop and those concerned with the Press woke up and realised that if the closed shop was enforced by the NUJ there was a risk—not necessarily overwhelming but some risk—that the union would abuse its position as a monopoly supplier of labour to the Press and restrict Press freedom in some way.
We can debate whether the danger of that happening is great or small, but we believe that if that is a danger at all it must be dealt with. It was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) and supported by the hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Magee) and Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) that the threat may not be imminent but is one that we ignore at our peril.
The question then arose, if that is the situation, whether one should and could protect Press freedom from that threat and specifically from that threat alone. It is important to remember that the Bill is about industrial relations and the impact of the closed shop. It is not a Bill about the Press generally. It is therefore no answer to what we say for Labour Members to say that there are other risks to Press freedom which should be dealt with. That is the answer to the points made about the influence of proprietors.
I do not agree with everything said about proprietors, but even if some of it were right, and even if some of what was said about access to the Press were right, it does not follow that we could or should try to deal with that problem in the Bill. A Royal Commission is sitting and when it has reported it may or may not be appropriate to introduce much more general legislation to meet the points of hon. Members opposite.
At the moment, we are concerned with one particular potential threat to Press freedom—that posed by a closed shop.


It is that threat alone we seek to meet in the Bill. Some hon. Members have said that the threat is so negligible that it ought not to be regarded; others have said that, even if it was not negligible and had been a reality, it had been adequately dealt with by the votes of the NUJ. We have had a thorough-going history of votes at NUJ meetings and in postal ballots. Whatever the constitutional position within that organisation, to rely for the protection of our freedom of speech on votes which can change from week to week and month to month is to base the most precious of our freedoms on shifting sands. Although the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) told us we should be grateful to the NUJ, the right attitude for this House is not to be grateful or ungrateful to the union. It is for this House to take the steps necessary to protect our freedoms rather than wait for the NUJ to be good enough to take an attitude we can approve.
Is it right to intervene in the encouragement of closed shops of the kind provided by this legislation? The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) asked why the NUJ should be singled out and why it should be more difficult for that union to impose a closed shop than it is for other unions in industry. They asked whether that was not unfair.
The answer is that producing a newspaper is not the same as manufacturing ball-bearings, and anybody who falls into the error of thinking that there is nothing we should do to protect the freedom of the Press, as opposed to dealing with a closed shop situation where freedom of expression is not concerned, is making a fundamental error which we reject. However important the closed shop may be to some people in industry, freedom of speech is more important for us, and if anyone is to protect freedom of speech, it should be this House. We should never be party to a protection which is false and illusory. It would be better not to make an attempt to protect Press freedom than to be a party to protecting it in a way which is a snare and a delusion. The Secretary of State's proposed amendments to the Goodman amendments are a snare and a delusion and are not worth the paper they are written on. That is why

I shall advise my hon. and right hon. Friends that the Goodman amendments should be supported and the Secretary of State's amendments should be rejected.
Much of the debate has taken place against a background of internecine strife, with a greater or lesser degree of politeness, between the Manifesto Group and other members of the Labour Party. The Secretary of State graciously conceded much to the Manifesto Group, exactly as we predicted at the outset. The charade has been played through. It is a charade because it does not make a halfpenny-worth of difference whether the Manifesto Group's amendments are passed or the Secretary of State's amendments go through. None provide adequate protection. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) claim that his amendment would guarantee Press freedom. How can it guarantee Press freedom when it is only a charter which is, at most, admissible and can be referred to, but has no effect and does not bite? My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East was devastating in his analysis of why a charter would have no effect and would not bite. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) showed that it was deprived of all force and had no effect because it merely provided something which could be looked at by the courts.
10.30 p.m.
At one point the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) intervened and said that the Bill did not deprive the journalist of his common law rights. He is correct. But the point is not that it does not deprive the journalist of his common law rights but that, in the form in which the Secretary of State would have it, it adds nothing to those rights and does not assist him one jot or tittle to enforce those rights and to have those rights. It would be quite wrong for us, on the basis of a charter which contained a lot of illusory hot air, to surrender our undoubted duty of providing real protection for the freedom of the Press in the area in which it is most threatened.
There is only one sure protection for the freedom of the Press when it is threatened in a particular way as it is in this Bill. It is for us in this House to have the courage to say to the country


that we cannot guarantee Press freedom. The hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher) was right in that sense. But we can give some measure of protection against a particular threat. That is what we propose to do, and that is why we support the Goodman amendment.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords Amendments be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 257.

Division No. 337.]
AYES
[5.46 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert


Allaun, Frank
Flannery, Martin
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, Kevin


Archer, Peter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Madden, Max


Armstrong, Ernest
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Magee, Bryan


Ashley, Jack
Ford, Ben
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon


Atkinson, Norman
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marks, Kenneth


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David


Bates, Alf
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Bean, R. E.
George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Gould, Bryan
Maynard, Miss Joan


Bidwell, Sydney
Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Graham, Ted
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mikardo, Ian


Boardman, H.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Millan, Bruce


Booth, Albert
Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hardy, Peter
Molloy, William


Bradley, Tom
Harper, Joseph
Moonman, Eric


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hatton, Frank
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Buchan, Norman
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Newens, Stanley


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Heffer, Eric S.
Noble, Mike


Campbell, Ian
Henderson, Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Canavan, Dennis
Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric


Cant, R. B.
Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Carter, Ray
Huckfield, Les
Orbach, Maurice


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)
Ovenden, John


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Dr David


Clemitson, Ivor
Hunter, Adam
Padley, Walter


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Palmer, Arthur


Cohen, Stanley
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Park, George


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Parker, John


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Greville
Parry, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Corbett, Robin
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cronin. John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Radice, Giles


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reid, George


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Judd, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kinnock, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lambie, David
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Deakins, Eric
Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.


Delargy, Hugh
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Roper, John


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Rose, Paul B.


Dempsey, James
Lee, John
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rowlands, Ted


Dormand, J. D.
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Ryman, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Sandelson, Neville


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sedgemore, Brian


Dunn, James A.
Lipton, Marcus
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dunnett, Jack
Litterick, Tom
 Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth 
 Shore, Rt Hon Peter 


Edelman, Maurice
Loyden, Eddie
 Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) 


Edge, Geoff
 Luard, Evan 
 Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) 


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
 Lyon, Alexander (York) 
 Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) 


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
 Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) 
 Sillars, James 


English, Michael
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson 
Silverman, Julius 


Ennals, David
MacCormick, Iain
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
 McElhone, Frank 
 Small, William 


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
MacFarquhar, Roderick 
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) 


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McGuire, Michael(Ince)
Snape, Peter


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mackintosh, John P. 
Spearing, Nigel 


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
 
 




Spriggs, Leslie
Tuck, Raphael
Whitlock, William


Stallard, A. W
Urwin, T W.
Wigley, Dafydd


Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Stoddart, David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Stott, Roger
Walden, Brian (B ham, L'dyw'd)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Strang, Gavin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Ward, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Swain, Thomas
Watkins, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Watkinson, John
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Watt, Hamish
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Weetch, Ken
Woof, Robert


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Weitzman, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thompson, George
Wellbeloved, James
Young, David (Bolton E)


Thome, Stan (Preston South)
Welsh, Andrew



Tierney, Sydney
White, Frank R. (Bury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Tinn, James
White, James (Pollok)
Mr. Tom Pendry and


Tomlinson, John
Whitehead, Phillip
Miss Margaret Jackson


Torney, Tom






NOES


Adley, Robert
Fell, Anthony
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Aitken, Jonathan
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Alison, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Knox, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lamont, Norman


Arnold, Tom
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lane, David


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Awdry, Daniel
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Baker, Kenneth
Fox, Marcus
Lawrence, Ivan


Banks, Robert
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lawson, Nigel


Beith, A. J.
Freud, Clement
Lester Jim (Beeston)


Bell, Ronald
Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lloyd, Ian


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Loveridge, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gardner, Edward (S Fylda)
Luce, Richard


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Biggs-Davison, John
Glyn, Dr Alan
McCrindle, Robert


Blaker, Peter
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Macfarlane, Neil


Body, Richard
Goodhart, Philip
MacGregor, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Bottomley, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Madel, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grant Anthony (Harrow C)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Brittan, Leon
Gray, Hamish
Marten, Neil


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Grieve, Percy
Mates, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grimond, Rt Hon J
Mather, Carol


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grist, Ian
Maude, Angus


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Grylls, Michael
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Buck, Antony
Hall, Sir John
Mawby, Ray


Budgen, Nick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mayhew, Patrick


Burden, F. A.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Hannam, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Peter


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Miscampbell, Norman


Channon, Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Churchill, W. S.
Havers, Sir Michael
Moate, Roger


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hawkins, Paul
Molyneaux, James


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Clegg, Walter
Heseltine, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Cockcroft, John
Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Cope, John
Hordern, Peter
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Cordle, John H
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Costain, A. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Critchley, Julian
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mudd, David


Crouch, David
Hunt, John
Neave, Airey


Crowder, F. P.
Hurd, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neubert, Michael


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Newton, Tony


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Nott, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
James, David
Onslow, Cranley


Drayson, Burnaby
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jessel, Toby
Page, John (Harrow West)


Durant, Tony
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pardoe, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pattle, Geoffrey


Elliott, Sir William
Jopling, Michael
Penhaligon, David


Emery, Peter
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Percival, Ian


Eyre, Reginald
Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kilfedder, James
Pink, R. Bonner


Fairgrieve, Russell
Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Farr, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis







Raison, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George
Townsend, Cyril D.


Rathbone, Tim
Skeet, T. H. H.
Trotter, Neville


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Speed, Keith
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Viggers, Peter


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Sproat, Iain
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Ridsdale, Julian
Stainton, Keith
Wakeham, John


Rifkind Malcolm
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wall, Patrick


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Walters, Dennis


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Warren, Kenneth


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stokes, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Storehouse, Rt Hon John
Wells, John


Sainsbury, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tapsell, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Winterton Nicholas


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tebbit, Norman
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Shepherd, Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter



Shersby, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Silvester, Fred
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Mr. William Benyon and


Sims, Roger
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

[For Division List 338 see col. 1541.]

Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 7 proposed, in line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 and insert:
'such matters as the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment, or criticism, the application of union membership agreements to journalists (and in particular the position of editors) and the question of access for contributors. '.—[Mr. Foot.]

Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment to the Lords Amendment (a), in line 3, leave out the words after "particular the" and insert instead thereof:
'right of editors to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union) and the right of editors to commission and publish any article '.—[Mr. George Reid.]

Question put, That amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 275.

Question accordingly negatived.

[For Division List 399 see col. 1545.]

Amendment to the proposed amendment made to the Lords Amendment (b), leave out "position of editors)" and insert:
right of editors to discharge their duties and to commission and publish any article)".—[Mr. Whitehead.]

Question put, That the amendment to Lords Amendments No. 7, as amended, be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 265.

Question accordingly agreed to.

[For Division List 340 see col. 1547.]

Further amendments made to Lords Amendment No. 7:

In line 35, leave out from "containing" to "and" in line 39 and insert
such practical guidance as is referred to in that subsection".
In line 40, at end insert—
( ) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall define its field of operation."—[Mr. Foot.]

Amendment proposed to Lords Amendment No. 7, leave out subsections (8) and (9) and insert—
'( ) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a charter which is for the time being in force under this section shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings, but in any proceedings for breach of contract in any court between a journalist and his employer or between a member of a trade union representing journalists and that trade union, or in any proceedings before an industrial tribunal under Schedule 1 to this Act or section 45 of the Employment Protection Act 1975

(a)any such charter shall be admissible in evidence, and
(b)any provision of such a charter which appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in those proceedings shall be taken into account by the court or tribunal in determining that question. '.—[Mr. Foot.]

Amendment to proposed amendment to Lords Amendment No. 7 made:

(a) leave out from second "proceedings" to "Employment Protection Act 1975."—[Mr. Marquand.]

Question put, That the proposed amendment, as amended, to Lords Amendment No. 7 be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 256.

Question accordingly agreed to.

[For Division List 341 see col. 1551.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with Lords Amendment No. 7, as amended.—[Mr. Booth.]

Mr. Hayhoe: We have had a somewhat involved series of Divisions and although I know that the Conservative Party have known what they have been doing, I am not at all sure that others did know. The effect of what we have done is to emasculate the Goodman amendments. We are


now back, as Labour Members wanted us to be, at Houghton, slightly modified with slight tinges of Manifesto attached to the Houghton amendments, which, as the Secretary of State made clear, were hardly worth mentioning.
These discussions on the Manifesto amendments have tended to obscure the main issue, which is whether or not we are prepared to support the defence of the freedom of the Press with effective measures backed by sanctions. We shall, therefore, vote against the whole package of amendments to Goodman, for we believe that proper enforcement provisions are vital.
The shadow boxing we have seen tonight between the Secretary of State and the Manifesto Group and the rather curious involvements of the Liberals and the Scottish Nationals and their ritualistic performances must not be allowed to draw attention away from what the House has done.
We shall, therefore, vote against this whole package of amendments because we do not think that they provide an effective defence for the freedom of the Press. I ask my hon. Friends now to register that view, and by so doing I hope

that another place will take the message—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that at least there is a substantial number of hon. Members in this House who support their view that the freedom of the Press is something worth defending with effective action.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 260.

Question accordingly agreed to.

[For Division List 342 see col. 1557.]

Remaining Lords amendment agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Booth, Mr. Brittan, Mr. Secretary Foot, Mr. Hayhoe and Mr. Thomas Cox; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Booth.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

INCUMBENTS (VACATION OF BENEFICES) MEASURE

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Terry Walker: I beg to move,
That the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
It was as long ago as 1966 that the Convocation of Canterbury—that is the clergymen—passed a resolution affirming their confidence in the ecclesiastical judicial measure for discipline cases but declaring that there was a need to provide a means whereby, when it was in the interests of the man or his parish, an incumbent could, after due inquiry, be removed from his benefice and offered a suitable post elsewhere.
The present measure accordingly seeks to deal with this area, where there is no suggestion of criminal conduct on the part of the incumbent but where his relationship with his parish or a substantial body of his parishioners has so deteriorated that pastoral care has come virtually to an end. The Measure is based on proposals presented to the General Synod in 1972. In 1974 it passed all the necessary stages in the General Synod. At no stage was there a division. It has been understood throughout to be legislation of an essentially domestic and pastoral character.
At the same time, care has been taken to allow legal representation where required and not to deny the claims of natural justice, particularly to those whose livelihoods are affected. The Measure applies to incumbents of benefices. It does not apply to non-beneficed clergy, such as assistant curates or curates in sole charge of a parish, since in their case the licence granted by the bishop of the diocese is also terminable by him at any time.
Part I of the Measure refers to those cases where there has been a serious breakdown of the pastoral relationship between the incumbent and his parishioners. This may be attributed to faults or disagreements on the part of the incumbent or his parishioners, or both.
Part II refers to cases of disability, where it is considered that the incumbent of a benefice is unable by reason of age or infirmity of mind or body to discharge adequately his duties. Similar provisions exist in the Incumbents (Disability) Measure 1945, which is to be repealed by this new measure. For both types of case there is to be a common basic procedure available, namely an inquiry conducted by a diocesan committee comprised of three clergy and two laymen drawn from elected diocesan, ministerial and lay councils. In the case of an inquiry into pastoral breakdown under Part I, the incumbent may opt for the inquiry to be conducted by a provincial tribunal consisting of a diocesan chancellor or Queen's counsel, who shall be the chairman, two clergymen and two laymen, where the parties concerned may be represented by a barrister or solicitor.
The constitution of these diocesan committees and provincial tribunals, and the procedure they are to follow, are set out clearly in the schedule of this Measure. Diocesan committees and provisional tribunals are required to report to the bishop. They cannot recommend that an incumbent should leave his benefice unless at least four of the five members are in favour of such a recommendation.
Furthermore, where an incumbent loses his benefice on the grounds that the committee or tribunal is of the opinion that there has been a serious breakdown of the pastoral relationship between the incumbent and the parishioners, the incumbent is entitled, pending a new appointment, to claim compensation for the loss he has suffered by reason of the enforced vacation of his benefice on the basis already laid down in the Pastoral Measure 1968, Schedule 4, when an incumbent is dispossessed. On the other hand the committee or tribunal report may lead to a rebuke from the bishop to either incumbent or parishioners, or indeed both, or the giving of such pastoral advice or guidance as the bishop should deem appropriate.
The expression "serious pastoral breakdown" is hard to define with any kind of precision, and the General Synod has taken care to safeguard the Church from what could be a spate of frivolous or hasty charges by limiting those who can make requests for official inquiries to be instituted. The Measure therefore


provides that only the incumbent himself, if he feels sufficiently aggrieved by the conduct of some or all of his parishioners, secondly the archdeacon, or thirdly the majority of the lay members of the parochial church council—that is, those who are directly responsible for the affairs of the church in that parish—may ask for an inquiry. The option is not given to any chance group of disgruntled parishioners to initiate action against their incumbents.
The Ecclesiastical Committee found the Measure to be expedient subject to the reservation about Clause 18. That clause gives the General Synod power to make rules and to make further provisions for the constitution and procedures of diocesan committees and pastoral tribunals, which matters are included in the schedule of this Measure.
The General Synod found itself in some difficulty. In the past it has been advised that it should not take up the time of Parliament with Measures which deal with comparatively minor matters but that it should confine itself to matters of broad principle. The Synod's approach has been on this basis.
I assure the House that the General Synod has no intention to use this power to curtail the rights of individuals, whether clerical or lay, who may have to appear before these committees and tribunals. Rather, the power is seen to be a means of giving added protection and safeguards, should these seem to be necessary, when the committees and tribunals have actually been appointed.
Finally, any rules made under the power will need the approval of all three Houses in the General Synod—the Bishops, the Clergy and the Laity—and will be subject to annulment in either House of Parliament.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) said that care had been taken by the General Synod to have regard to the rules and principles of natural justice. I oppose this Measure and hope to persuade hon. Members to oppose it first and foremost because there is, to my way of thinking, a fundamental denial of the rules of natural justice in one of the

provisions. There are three other blemishes in the Measure to which I object.
I have to confess at the outset that I read the Measure for the first time only two hours ago, and therefore I am sorry that my speech is not as carefully constructed as I would like. I deal first with the most important point, which arises out of the failure of this Measure to confer any right upon the incumbent to be heard personally by the diocesan committee or provincial tribunal set up by the bishop to inquire whether there has been a breakdown in the pastoral relationship brought about by the conduct of the clergyman.
I make it clear at once that I am not against the intention of the Measure. I am for it. I think it is long overdue that there should be granted to the Church the power to get rid of an incumbent who should properly be got rid of. I am in favour of the intention of the Measure.
But we must never lose sight of the fact that a clergyman whose benefice may be declared to be vacated under the provisions of this Measure is a clergyman who will lose his livelihood. Therefore, it seems to me to be absolutely fundamental that he must be given the right to be heard by the committee that carries out that inquiry.
This is even more strongly the case, surely, when one reads in Clause 10 that where the committee recommends that the bishop "shall" declare the benefice to be vacated he will have no discretion, provided that the diocesan committee makes that recommendation by a majority of four to one. If four out of the five make that recommendation, the bishop "shall" comply with it.
Therefore, one has the position that a clergyman may be deprived of his livelihood as a result of an inquiry carried out by a committee before which he is or may have been denied the right to attend in person and state his case.
I must not be seen to be making a false or unfair point. It is true that there is a right conferred upon the incumbent to make written representations. However, the diocesan committee of inquiry is given the right by Clause 10 to invite any person who may, in its opinion, be able to assist it, to address the committee or tribunal or give oral evidence. The procedure to be followed is set out in Part


III of the schedule at page 17. For example, the committee has the right to invite a clergyman's detractors to give oral evidence, but the clergyman has no right to give oral evidence himself, if the committee does not invite him to do so, or to call evidence, or to address the committee in person. That has only to be stated to reveal a fundamental denial of one of the first and most important principles of natural justice, namely, that one should have the right to state one's case. I do not have to elaborate that.
I pass to the remaining points to which I object in the Measure. They are not of the same importance as the first one, but they are important.
The first is that there is no right to object to more than two members of the diocesan committee of inquiry. This provision is to be found in the schedule. A clergyman may object, but does not have to give his reasons, to two members of the panel appointed by the registrar. Why cannot he object to each of those members of the panel if he has reason to do so and why should there not be the bishop or some other established authority to adjudicate on whether there is good reason? Why should not the procedure that applies in the case of juries apply here? This provision is profoundly wrong.
Secondly, in paragraph 8 of the schedule it says that of this committee of five members, three shall be the quorum. However, nowhere is it provided that the three who constitute the quorum shall attend every meeting of the committee, that is to say, shall be present throughout the proceedings. We must not lose sight of the fact that the committee has jurisdiction to sack the clergyman, since the bishop has to act upon the recommendation. Why is there not a provision that this quorum of three shall consist only of members who are present at every meeting, that is to say throughout the whole proceedings?
Lastly, paragraph 13 of the schedule says that all proceedings shall be in private. Why on earth should they be in private? In certain proper cases they may be in private. If that were the provision in the Measure it would be in line with the jurisdiction conferred upon many disciplinary committees, for example, for the professions. However, why should a committee with this powerful jurisdiction, which I have already emphasised, have to

sit in private? It means that a man may lose his livelihood by virtue of its recommendation and yet never have its deliberations and in particular the evidence heard in public. This is a thoroughly undesirable and unsatisfactory feature of the measure.
I do not take issue with the provision that the bishop has to comply with the recommendation of the committee if it is made by the majority of four out of five. I do not like it. I should have preferred the bishop to retain his discretion in a matter so important as this. But as we have legislated for synodical government, this is a matter that should be left to the Church to decide. If the Church wants that, well and good.
In conclusion, I revert to the first point that I made. It is of fundamental importance that a man has the right to attend, be heard and call evidence if he wishes, and that right is not conferred by the Measure. This is a point which is expressly made in the report by the Ecclesiastical Committee in the document that accompanies this measure at paragraph 10. The schedule does not confer on the parties the right to be heard. It is no good saying "Oh well, he always would be given the right". That is not good enough. In this House we should not connive at the passing of legislation that infringes the principles of natural justice. I hope that hon. Gentlemen—

Mr. Peter Rees: Will my hon. and learned Friend elucidate one point? I have followed with interest the point he is making. Paragraph 11 of the schedule says:
The incumbent concerned shall be entitled to attend any meeting of the committee or tribunal at which any other person is to give evidence to, or be heard by, the committee or tribunal and to put questions to that person.
Paragraph 9(1) says:
Any person may make written representations to the committee or tribunal.
It occurs to me that the tribunal could not proceed without either written representations or oral evidence. Is it my hon. and learned Friend's view that, if written representations were made, paragraph 11 would entitle an incumbent to attend? If that were so, clearly an incumbent has the right to attend if oral evidence is given. If my hon. and learned Friend takes the view that an incumbent


also has the right to attend if written representations are made, that might cover all the eventualities, as presumably the commitee of inquiry could not proceed without either written or oral evidence of some kind. It is a difficult point. Obviously my hon. and learned Friend has given it closer attention than I have.

Mr. Mayhew: Where only written evidence is to be received by the committee, I do not think that the incumbent is entitled to attend and make a speech, which is the point about which I am concerned. Paragraph 11 is a little obscure. One cannot put questions to a person whose evidence is given only in writing. That is the answer to the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend. It is true that by virtue of paragraph 11 there is an entitlement to put questions to anyone who gives evidence to the committee. However, one cannot open one's case and outline one's answer to the charges made. One cannot make a speech at the end of the case. This is an extraordinarily truncated attempt to comply with the requirements of natural justice.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome this chance of saying a few words about the Measure. I do not think that it is a minor matter, though that is how the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) described it. It is a matter of great importance.
It is very sad that a Measure such as this should have to come before the House. I believe sincerely, as I am sure most hon. Members believe, that the Church should be a Church of reconciliation. It is very sad that Christians cannot agree in matters such as this. It would be as well for the Church of England to remind itself that it is a Church of reconciliation.
As I read the Measure, it goes against the whole of the New Testament. I am reminded of such exhortations as that we be reconciled to one another. However, that having been said, we must return to earth. This is an imperfect world and we have an imperfect Church, regrettably. Therefore, I believe that there is, regrettably, a need for a Measure of this sort.
Turning to the question of compulsory resignation, for that is what this is, I am unhappy about the phrase
breakdown of the pastoral relationship".
How sad that is. I know from working in the Church of England in the remote rural areas where many head-on collisions of this type occur that it is because over a period of time there has not been sufficient aid and care accorded to the incumbent. I know that men become embittered, lonely and frustrated. It is in that sort of situation that the head-on clash develops. There is then a breakdown of the pastoral relationship between the incumbent and his flock. I hope that the bishops and the archdeacons will take far more time—I appreciate that they lead busy and difficult lives—to help and encourage the parish priests. That is a matter of vital importance.
Clause 10(7) reads:
the bishop may give such pastoral advice and guidance".
I believe that "may" is the wrong word. A bishop should do so. It is not a question of "may". That must be the first duty of a bishop or archdeacon. They must look after their incumbents and their flocks when there are real problems.
We must ask ourselves why such a situation can develop. Why is there a breakdown of the pastoral relationship? It may be because of the problems of churchmanship. Perhaps far more care should be taken in the appointment of parish priests to certain parishes. That is probably a matter that will be coming up in other measures. There is no question about it, head-on clashes sometimes develop because of the problem of churchmanship. I regret it, but that is a fact of life.
We must also take into account that sometimes there is a lack of Christian charity on the part of parishioners. I hope that the Church will look carefully at the whole business of Christian charity and give and take, particularly when things begin to go wrong in a parish.
I must reiterate that there is the problem of despondency. I find that this occurs in rural areas because of the remoteness, lack of communication, lack of encouragement and lack of fellowship.


Some parish priests become very much run down, and their position can be understood. In such instances there develops a real breakdown between the incumbent and his flock.
I hesitate to say this, but this Measure puts real power in the hands of the bishops. We cannot run away from that fact. Although we are prepared to trust the bishops, I believe that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) has put his finger on a very important point in that there must be proper safeguards. It is quite obvious that I am not of a legal mind, but I feel that my hon. and learned Friend has raised a matter that should be considered and resolved. There should be proper safeguards and proper supervision. We should do everything possible to see that the incumbent has every safeguard.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: We have heard quite a lot from Conservatives about the inadequacies of this measure in terms of protecting the incumbent, but I put it to the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) that there are a considerable number of clergymen in the Church of England—I would guess that they are an increasing number—who are not incumbents and who hold jobs at least as responsible as those of incumbents who do not enjoy any of the protections contained in this Measure—clergyman who can be fired with very little protection afforded to them. I would like the hon. Gentleman to comment on the position of clergymen in that position.

Mr. Mills: With great respect I believe that I should be out of order, because although I understand what the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) is getting at, I point out that we are dealing with people who have livings. I do not think that the point he raises comes into the matter.
I turn from compulsory resignation to compulsory retirement. As we examine this Measure we must ask ourselves why incumbents continue to go on and on well past the time when they should have retired. The reason concerns not only the question of a pension but that of accommodation. That is why an incumbent is prepared to go on in his living far beyond the time at which he should retire.

I speak to myself as much as to anyone else when I say that the Church of England should wake up to its financial responsibilities in provisions for elderly clergy so that they can retire. That will ensure that this sort of situation does not arise. I understand that a pension can be provided in this situation, but I suggest, from my knowledge, that many times it is the case that elderly clergy have nowhere to go—no alternative accommodation.
The Church of England must wake up to its responsibilities in this matter, because if one has been a parish priest for many years one has no chance of saving any money or putting by for retirement. With inflation roaring ahead there is no hope for such people ever getting a house of their own so that they can retire.
I believe that before such a serious step as compulsory retirement is taken, we should try, in these difficult times, to make better provisions for accommodation for these elderly people.
I shall not vote against this Measure. I see the need for it, when we come to the end of the road in this difficult situation. However, I hope that we shall always seek to be a Church of reconciliation so that this sort of situation will never arise.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. John Cordle: I closely follow the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) in respect of the extraordinarily low incomes that clergymen receive even in 1975. If we compare the salaries they receive with those that are given abroad, especially in the United States, we see that they are deplorable.
However, turning to this Measure, one is always suspicious of proposals to remove old men from office against their will. The history of our country shows that many men have done their best work after the age of seventy.
We cannot overlook the fact that only a few years ago the Church courts were used to deprive a Godly clergyman of his living because he refused to yield to the pressures of some of his congregation I am referring to Mr. Grubb, who is the late rector of Spaxton in Somerset.


Sometimes one begins to feel that nowadays, whatever happens, the parson is always wrong and the contentious parishioner is invariably right. We need a new breed of bishops who will be equally true and righteous both with clergymen and with laity.
For these and other reasons I hope that this House will watch closely the manner in which this Measure is applied. There ought to be some inexpensive way in which maltreated clergy can appeal to the Ombudsman when they are mishandled, as they think, by their superiors.
I should like to think that if the proposals are to be approved in their present form, equally stringent measures will be applied to bishops and dignitaries in the near future if this can be done and if the need arises.
I believe that this House, while leaving the General Synod to debate and formulate its own laws for the better government of the national Church, must always guard the rights of the individual citizen, whether ordained or lay. This especially applies in cases of elderly clergymen who have given the best years of their lives to serve at cut-price rates of pay far below those available to their contemporaries in universities who turned to teaching and to other learned professions. Most of these men cannot afford to save to buy homes for their retirement, or to rent adequate accommodation, if they can find it. We all know that the supply of Church pension homes is very limited.
May I pose a serious question? Will the compensation proposed take account of the fact that the man losing his living will be homeless?
I think that we must approve this Measure, at the same time making it clear that this House is not here to rubber-stamp anything which the General Synod may lay before it in future. For my part, I am glad to know that there is some concern in this House and in another place about a further Measure which proposes the confiscation of private patronage.
In conclusion, I should add that, in the light of the Archbishop's appeal to the nation today, this House must not shrug off its ancient responsibility for moral leadership in national life.

12.17 a.m.

Sir Michael Havers: I speak not only as a lawyer but as an ex-chancellor of two dioceses.
I am impressed by the points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew), in particular the denial in this Measure of the absolute right for an incumbent to be heard and to call witnesses in an inquiry where the report of those hearing it, if it is four out of the five, shall be acted upon with no discretion by the bishop. This is putting an incumbent in a position which will remove from him not only his livelihood but his right to a freehold which exists at the moment. No person charged with any criminal offence or who faces any sort of inquiry is placed in that situation.
This matter ought to be taken back and looked at by the Synod when it meets again, as I understand, in November. The rules of natural justice must be made clear and brought back to this House, and the other matters mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend should also be looked at. In particular, this matter should be looked at as it is mandatory upon the bishop to act upon the recommendation. If that were done, the purposes of the Measure would not only be sensible but right. I am sure that the House would then welcome and pass the Measure. At the moment, I feel unable to allow the Measure to go through in this way, because a major departure from the rules of natural justice is unfortunately enshrined in it.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I view this Measure with deep concern and perhaps like other Members of this honourable House I am concerned about many of the Measures being passed by the General Synod. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Cordle) mentioned another Measure that is likely to come before the House in the not-too-distant future.
We must not overlook natural justice, and I am amazed that the Second Church Estates Commissioner can put forward this Measure on behalf of the Synod when so much natural justice is denied to a person who is so dependent upon his living. I am deeply concerned about this, and along with the points that have been so


well covered, I want to refer to Clause 4 which seems to be nothing but blackmail, because if an incumbent knows that an inquiry is likely to be set up and he resigns before it has its first meeting, he is entitled to compensation. This clause will, therefore, put an incumbent in a very difficult position. It will put him under a tremendous amount of pressure. He will ask, "Can I adequately defend myself against a person or a group of people who have pressed for an inquiry to be set up into the way that I administer my parish?".
This is wrong, and for this reason and the lack of natural justice which we would all expect to be given to any person I believe that the Measure should be opposed.

12.22 a.m.

Mr. Terry Walker: I am grateful to hon. Members for raising various points and I should like to make a few comments in reply.
I believe that in this whole discussion it should not be overlooked that the Church is about people. It is the people who sit in the pews who must be thought about, as well as the incumbents, whose case has had such a wide airing from the Opposition side of the House.
This Measure is concerned not with a criminal trial but with the problems of men. It is concerned with a disastrous situation where there has been a breakdown of relationships within a parish. We recognise that this is a regrettable occurrence but it is something that has to be worked out between the clergyman and his people. We very much hope that these things will not come to the committees at all but will be dealt with in other ways.
The composition of these committees is important. It should not be overlooked that the panels are elected by the clergy and laity of the diocese. There will be maximum consultation—

Mr. John Wells: It is a spurious argument that these panels are elected by the clergy and laity of the diocese. There has been some sort of an election in the diocese in which I live. We were presented with a list of 16 names. I am a reasonable visitor round the diocese, and I know quite a number of people in it, but I had heard of only one of the 16

names. I knew basically nothing about the other 15. The elections are bogus. They are confined to a mutual admiration society and a small clique. There is nothing democratic about them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not forget that part of the argument.

Mr. Walker: A similar argument has been used about elections to this House.
The position is that four of the five members of the committee have to be in agreement. The incumbent is entitled to submit written evidence. He can also be asked to come and give whatever evidence he wants to the committee. Further, if anyone else is heard the incumbent has the right to be present, with or without his legal advisers, to hear all that is said.

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Member has said that the clergy and tribunals are elected. Would he look at Part II of the schedule, on page 16, paragraph 4, where it says that in the case of a provincial tribunal the persons constituting the tribunal shall be appointed by the Vicar-General? The five persons so appointed are described in sub-paragraph (2). They are not elected by anybody. They are appointed.

Mr. Walker: There was one point that needs clarification. It is not the livelihood of the incumbent that is in question. If he loses his benefice he can, of course, receive financial compensation in respect of his stipend and the loss of his work. Also, as I spelt out when I introduced this matter, the parties concerned can be represented by a barrister or solicitor. This is important.
Finally, the General Synod of the Church of England has dealt with this and at no stage has there been a division. When the Ecclesiastical Committee met there were some reservations about one clause but it was passed. The objections raised tonight would have been much better raised before, because it would have helped us in our deliberations there.

Sir Michael Havers: The House would be grateful if the Second Church Estate Commissioner would tell us whether the points raised tonight were raised in debate in the Synod, and also if he would answer the very pertinent point put to him by my hon. and learned Friend the Member


for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew). Is he telling the House that the right to question those who attend—not a right to challenge written evidence—is sufficient when there is an absolute denial of the right to attend and to give evidence on one's own behalf? I am sure that the House would like to hear the answer to that.

Mr. Walker: When this matter came to the Synod there was a discussion about it. Obviously I have not the record here at this stage, but the points raised here have all been adequately dealt with before. When it came to the Ecclesiastical Committee I am quite sure that this point was not raised at all by any members present, and certainly this was something that was not considered to be important at the time.

Sir Michael Havers: Is the hon. Member telling the House that one of the most fundamental principles of natural justice either was not discussed at Synod or was considered to be of no importance?

Mr. Walker: We are, with respect, not talking about a criminal trial. As I have already said, we are talking about a serious breakdown between an incumbent and his parish. That has been the view throughout all the discussions.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Is the hon. Member saying that an incumbent whose whole livelihood has been challenged—and his home, for which he gets no guaranteed alternative accommodation—is allowed to see and to know the contents of the written allegations made against him but may not himself speak concerning these allegations?

Mr. Walker: In Part III of the Schedule, paragraph 9(2) reads:
Where any person, other than the incumbent concerned, makes written representations to the committee or tribunal, the incumbent concerned shall be entitled to be supplied with a copy of those representations and within three weeks after such copy is supplied to him to send his comments thereon in writing to the committee or tribunal, as the case may be.

Mr. Mayhew: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down I wish to put a point to him. In some respects he has been put into an unfair position because unfortunately I did not have the opportunity

to give him prior notice of the points I wanted to raise. That was because I saw them myself only shortly before our debate began. Will the hon. Member now concede that he is not in a position to answer the main point which has been made tonight, a point which has not been challenged by anyone from the Government benches?
Perhaps these matters were dealt with in committee and in debate in the Synod, but if they were the hon. Gentleman is not able to answer the criticisms. Would it not be better for the hon. Gentleman to take this Measure back to the Synod at its November meetings so that it may be brought back to this House with the correct answer?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: The hon. Member has heard the arguments which have been carefully adduced tonight and he will be aware of two things. First, the principle of the measure is largely accepted in this House. Secondly, he will realise that there is profound disquiet on the point and that it is giving rise to argument.
It is distasteful to most of us to have to vote against a Measure with which in principle we agree, but for the reasons given by my hon. Friends I do not think we have any alternative. If it is in the hon. Member's power, therefore, I hope that he will reconsider what he has just said. He can be reasonably sure that if the point that the House has made this evening can reasonably be met the House will, when the Measure next comes before it, be willing to agree to it. In its present form, however, the House will certainly reject it.

Mr. Walker: By leave of the House, may I say that these points have been gone through very thoroughly by the Synod. I believe that the points raised tonight have been answered as eloquently as has been possible.

Question put,
That the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 33.

Division No. 343.]
AYES
[12.33 a.m.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Noble, Mike
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Cohen, Stanley
Penhaligon, David
Ward, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Dempsey, James
Rodgers, George (Chorley)



Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Horam. John
Snape, Peter
Mr. Ivor Clemitson and


John, Brynmor
Stott, Roger
Mr. Frank White.


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)





NOES


Alison, Michael
Marquand, David
Spearing, Nigel


Banks, Robert
Mayhew, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Brotherton, Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Wall, Patrick


Bulmer, Esmond
Mills, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wiggin, Jerry


Cordle, John H.
Percival, Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Durant, Tony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Younger, Hon George


Glyn, Dr Alan
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)



Havers, Sir Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hicks, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. John Wells and


Judd, Frank
Silvester, Fred
Mr. John Farr.


Kimball, Marcus

Question accordingly negatived.

EXPENDITURE

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 18th November relating to nomination of Members of the Expenditure Committee, Mr. Frank McElhone be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Giles Radice be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

MISSILES (STANDARDISATION)

12.43 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: It has been said that up to 50 per cent. of the vast sums spent in the research and development of weapons in Europe is wasted because of duplication of effort. In the United States of America the Callaghan Report has estimated wastage through duplication to be as much as 10 billion dollars. Both these figures may very well be on the high side but, clearly, at a time when the electorate are pressing their various Governments to make economies any wastage on this scale is unacceptable. I would go further and say that if Europe

is to afford an effective defence in the next 20 years it must standardise its hardware in all fields and that the first task is to remove duplication.
The standardisation of tactical missiles in Europe and between Europe and the United States of America is probably an easier task than in other fields such as aircraft or armour as it is a relatively new technology and, therefore, vested national interests are not so entrenched.
Having visited most of the missile producers in Europe, I would first like to consider the weapons and the duplication that exists, make some suggestions about the present and the next generation of missiles, and then compare the various types of missiles produced in Europe and in the United States of America. Having done this, one is in a position to make suggestions for maintaining an effective European missile industry as well as eliminating undue duplication with the United States of America in future generations of tactical missiles.
I fear this will be a rather technical debate, and I hope the House will excuse me if I glance at my notes rather more often than usual. For the benefit of those who record our speeches, I have provided a comprehensive list of the large number of missiles to which I shall refer.
Existing European tactical missiles can be divided into three basic categories—ship-borne, land based and airborne, each category having a number of subdivisions.


Taking first ship-borne missiles, we have the shorter range Penguin from Norway and Sea Killer II and III from Italy, which have a range of some 20 kilometres and a relatively small warhead, suitable for fast patrol boats. It is about time that we followed Norway's example and built missile-armed fast patrol boats. Before the last war, we led the world in fast patrol boats. Now we have only four and they are not armed at all, let alone with missiles.
In the longer range, there are the French Exocet, to be followed by the MM40, the Otomat produced by Italy and the Harpoon by the USA. Exocet has been purchased by the Royal Navy but has to be fired within plus or minus 30 degrees of the direction of the target, whereas Otomat can be fired within plus or minus 300 degrees, giving much greater flexibility. Harpoon has the great advantage in that it is designed to be fired from ships, submarines or aircraft. In the surface-to-air category we find greater duplication—in the medium range the French Marine Roland II and the Naval Crotale and Italy's Albatross using the Sea Sparrow III or Aspide missile, together with the very successful, but shorter range, British Sea Cat and the rather specialised SLAM.
In the longer range, there are the British Sea Dart—which is replacing Sea Slug—the French Masurca and the United States Standard II.
Mention must also be made of the unique British Sea Wolf, which is the only anti-missile missile in existence and is said to be able to hit an object the size of a cricket ball travelling at Mach 2.
Helicopter-borne anti-ship missiles include the Italian Marte, the French AM39 and the British Sea Skua, Hellcat and Hawkswing, with the Franco-German HOT and the American TOW for use against armour.
Here I would like to ask the Minister a direct question. The Government have cancelled Hawkswing, which leaves our helicopters armed with a near-obsolete weapon AS 11 or 12. Are they now going to consider the purchase of HOT or TOW, as these seem to be the only alternatives that would provide modern weapons for our army/air helicopters?
As far as land-based missiles are concerned duplication in certain categories is even greater. Tactical surface-to-surface missiles with nuclear capacity include the American Lance, now adopted for many NATO armies, and the French Pluton. In the field of surface-to-air missiles the long-range category, now that Bloodhound and Thunderbird are obsolete, is dominated by the American Improved Hawk, with a range of some 40 kms. In the medium range, we find the French Roland and Crotale, the British Rapier and the Italian Indigo and Spada, and in the short-range infantry missiles the British Blowpipe and the American Red Eye, to be replaced by the Stinger.
In the anti-tank weapons we have the British Swingfire, which is the only one to be capable of being fired from behind cover, the Franco-German HOT and the American TOW. In the lightweight range, the Franco-German Milan, the now obsolete British Vigilant, the Italian Sparviero and Mosquito and the German Mamba.
Airborne missiles provide an even greater variety. These include the long-range air-to-surface Anglo-French Martel and the Italian Otomat. In the medium range there are the French AS30, the United States Bullpup, the British Sea Skua and the German Kormoran. In the air-to-air category, medium range, there is the very advanced French Super 530, the American-United Kingdom XJ 521, the Italian Aspide, the British Red Top and the American Sparrow. For close combat there are the French R550, the British SRAAM and the American Sidewinder.
I have mentioned all these missiles by name to illustrate the number of designs produced and the intense competition between nations for a relatively limited market.
What is needed, and this is the nub of my speech, is an evaluation of those missiles whose life could be extended for the next decade, together with a new standard weapon in each main category for the next, or third, generation, of tactical missiles. In this evaluation it is interesting to note that five companies dominate the European market—Aerospatiale and Matra from France, MBB


from Germany and BAC and Hawker Siddeley Dynamics from Great Britain. There is already considerable co-operation between these firms—some are producing joint weapons—and there is a general feeling that this co-operation could be greatly increased, given the right circumstances.
The problem is how to standardise the existing 79 European-built tactical missiles together with the 13 types purchased from the United States. I propose to be so bold as to attempt such an evaluation for at least the following categories. The first is naval sea-skimming, in which would come the MM40—that is, the improved Exocet—and the Otomat.
Next is naval underwater-to-surface operations. Now that the British Government have abandoned the Sub-Martel, the United States Harpoon is the obvious choice. With naval area self-defence there is a considerable query because there is no ideal weapon in this category yet. Possibly the Sea Dart could be used, or the Maritime Roland or the American Aegis system now under development. For naval point defence there is no query—the Sea Wolf is a world beater. The American Lance is the main weapon system for army ground-to-ground, while for army ground-to-air there are Roland, which has been chosen by America for protection of armoured forces, and Rapier which is best for airfield defence.
For air-to-ground, long range, the Martel is supreme, while for air-to-ground, short range, there is HOT or TOW. Martel or Harpoon come into the air-to-ship, long range stand-off category, and the Sea Skua is my choice for the air-to-ship, short range. In the air-to-air medium to long range category there is the Super 530, and the 550 for the air-to-air, short range, dog-fight rôle.
Such an evaluation would entail Europe adopting at least two major American weapon systems—Lance and Harpoon—and leaves open for future development three categories; namely, medium-range army ground-to-air, single man portable ground-to-air, and anti-tank systems, in which areas I hope that British companies will take the initiative.
Of the 12 European missiles listed six are now coming into service and others, now in service, have a considerable

development potential. A high degree of standardisation could, therefore, be achieved within the next five to 10 years with the weapons already in existence or coming into service in the near future.
The key to standardisation in the following, or third generation lies in the staff requirement or design study. At present the Conference of National Armament Directors has agreed that there should be only one European naval surface-to-surface missile in the next generation, and a family of four anti-tank missiles in the 1,000 metres to 4,000 metres range. It is hoping to agree on one design of medium-range ground-to-air missile, which at present is nonexistent. So far so good, but, as usual, there is a snag. It has agreed in principle that there should be only one weapons system, but each country will undoubtedly bring forward its own candidate. Armaments directors wear national hats; although they have agreed in principle on a standardised weapon, when the time comes they are almost bound to press for their own country's weapons.
This is the main point of my speech. We shall not achieve standardisation until the requirement and design study is prepared by an international staff. Once that is done, firms can easily arrange the various international consortia for the production of these missiles. But they must first have clear guidance as to the common design requirement. They have told me that time and time again.
How can that be done? I believe that it could be done now. The design study could now be carried out by an international staff; namely, the Military Committee of NATO, provided that it is given adequate technical staff with which to carry this out. At a later date I hope that a European Armaments Agency will be developed and set up to draw together the present groups—namely CNAD and EURONAD, EUROLOG and EURO-LONGTERM—into a co-ordinated whole, with a defined institutional basis. Only when that is done will Europe be able to achieve a satisfactory trade-off with the USA.
The Government have, in my view correctly, announced the suspension of the Sub-Martel and the Hawkswing, and the purchase of the United States Harpoon and the Franco-German Milan. What


weapons will these countries buy from Britain in return? That is the key operation if our missile industry is to survive. Sea Wolf is a world beater and should, therefore, be a candidate, but very little seems to be done to push the sale of this weapon compared with the efforts of the American companies, backed by the United States Government, to push their hardware. The Minister must appreciate that he will not be able to make a convincing case for purchasing abroad unless he can tell the House what weapons of British manufacture foreign countries will purchase in return.
To summarise, tactical missiles seem to me to be the best field in which to achieve standardisation. First, the multiplicity of European missiles must be pruned down in the next generation to certain specific categories. Then adequate exchange arrangements must be made with the USA. True standardisation and, therefore, a true basis of exchange is, in my view, unlikely to be reached until design studies are undertaken not by a national but by an international staff. This should be tried out as soon as possible and should be followed by the institution of a European Armaments Agency, which, I remind the Minister of State, was recommended both by the North Atlantic Assembly and by the Western European Union. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that action in all these important matters is either being taken or is contemplated.

1.58 a.m.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): It is a convention on these occasions to welcome virtually every Adjournment debate with which the House is faced, but it is more than a convention on this occasion when I say that I am very glad that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) was able to raise these important matters today.
In the House we have too few opportunities to discuss detailed matters related to weapons systems, for example, and, therefore, it has been to the advantage of us all that the hon. Gentleman sought this opportunity to enlarge in the House on his distinguished work elsewhere. Many of the matters which he raised today need detailed consideration

by Ministers and by our advisers, but I think that he has helped to push the frontiers forward. I hope that in the subsequent debates in matters of defence policy, and in our annual debate on the White Paper, we will pick up where he left off and examine some of his suggestions in more detail.
When I say that this is a particularly appropriate time, of course I have in mind the announcement, to which the hon. Member referred, which we made on 23rd September, indicating three very substantial purchases for the Armed Forces. I was pleased to have his broad endorsement of this decision this evening, because when the House debated defence at the beginning of May he indicated that he supported the broad principles which I suggested should underlie the purchase of equipment of all kinds.
We on both sides of the House are concerned with two different considerations. In the first place, we want to see a strong United Kingdom guided weapons industry as far ahead as we reasonably can. We believe that we have a special expertise and wish to see it flourish, not only for our own domestic needs but also in so far as it makes an important contribution to the alliance.
Secondly, we have an anxiety to see standardisation both to make the alliance effective and because we cannot expect to have the full range of guided weapons in our possession unless there is a higher measure of agreement than hitherto between the countries within the alliance.
Standardisation is an old issue, but we should not dismiss it for the reason that it has had perhaps only limited success. My right hon. Friend has been seeking to give new impetus to it in the discussions in the Eurogroup. It will come as no surprise that matters of this kind have not been wholly absent from the agenda in recent visits by Mr. James Schlesinger, the United States Secretary for Defence, and M. Bourges, the French Defence Minister. Therefore, in so far as the hon. Gentleman has given a further direction to this thinking, it is greatly to our advantage.
The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he was anxious mainly to put a number of important matters, as he saw them, on the record. I had previously had the opportunity of looking at his WEU report,


Document 671, in particular the recommendations in paragraph 522. I undertake to give further study to that document and to his additional remarks tonight.
I have also looked at the part of the report on the security of the alliance to the Military Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly, which is also relevant to the question of choice of equipment and the desirability, if we can, of having a higher level of standardisation even if it is within this one relatively small area.
I want now to set out the principles determining the United Kingdom procurement policy, endorsing what I tried to do in setting them out in the debate on 7th May. I there said that we had two objectives—first, to provide the Armed Forces with the equipment they need, and, secondly, to ensure as far as possible a strong British industry by giving it the greatest possible amount of work. But I contested on that occasion—and there was no argument—the view that it was wrong by definition to buy foreign weapons and right by definition to buy British weapons at all times. I said that to pursue that policy would make nonsense of standardisation because, although it seemed legitimate for this country, it could equally be claimed to be legitimate action by other countries too.
I said that, given the whole range of missiles, the cost of going it alone in each of these sectors was far beyond the means of any country in Western Europe and somewhat beyond the means of the United States as well. I said that as a background to standardisation. But I agree—and it is right to focus on this point—that if we buy abroad we hope others will buy from us. The principle of standardisation will work only if it means reciprocity as well. We shall be looking, as far as possible, for reciprocal arrangements, not only as a result of this purchase of foreign equipment. It is not always right to relate one item to another. The whole field should be examined.
If we could provide all-British weapons which precisely met the needs of the Services, if they were the cheapest available, were then adopted by NATO and sold in large quantities to other countries round the world, we should be delighted. However, it is too much to expect that it will always be as easy as that. Therefore,

increasingly we must work towards European solutions without in any way excluding transatlantic ones as well. I hope that what was announced on 23rd September and what has been said by the hon. Member for Haltemprice tonight is all part of the same story of seeking to achieve the right weapons, to meet the needs of our Armed Forces.

Mr. Wall: Will the Minister answer the two questions that I put to him? Will he confirm that we shall press hard for sales of Sea Wolf abroad, because it is a unique weapon? Will he also state the future armour with which our helicopters will have to deal? This question was asked in another place and received no answer.

Mr. Rodgers: I had not overlooked the hon. Gentleman's questions. I was coming to them. We shall do all we can with Sea Skua because it is important. Sea Wolf is a unique weapon and we want it to be accepted. Bearing in mind the financial pressure on the Armed Forces, we decided that we could not at present go ahead with Hawkswing, but further consideration persuaded us that for the time being we did not have to make a purchase of any kind. The House may assume that it is unlikely that we shall in the foreseeable future make any announcement on this matter.
In this package we sought to deal with a number of related matters in order that they could be presented together and, in a sense, one could be offset in our own minds and in discussions with our allies against the other.
As long as we seek reciprocity people will be anxious about the employment consequences. This is why I am glad that the matter has been raised this evening and was debated on 7th May. It is important that as far as possible we should speak with the same voice and have a consistent policy towards the industry.
As a result of the decisions that we have made, we expect expanding work loads on the production side in the next few years which should fully maintain job opportunities in the industry. Our decisions will inevitably mean some redundancies on the design side but as far as possible we shall endeavour to offset these and we wish to maintain the design capacity of the industry. During the next decade there


should not be any real anxiety about the future of the industry. From now on we shall seek to obtain agreements which will represent genuine reciprocity within the alliance from which we shall all benefit.
The hon. Gentleman referred not only to standardisation as a principle but also to the institutional framework for getting the right answer. This is not easy, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well. We have had co-operation within NATO, and particularly through the Eurogroup. I should welcome a good deal more cooperation between the individual firms concerned, because it must not always be assumed that the intervention of the Government is the first point of departure towards a successful collaborative venture. British firms in the guided weapons business are themselves taking the initiative and looking forward to the prospect of co-operation, particularly in Europe but not excluding transatlantic co-operation.
We must examine all institutional means of securing co-operation. It may

be that there should be a new framework of the kind the hon. Gentleman suggests. I do not want to commit myself to that tonight beyond saying that we will examine it in detail and consider whether it can perform a function which is not now performed within the alliance bilaterally or in some other way within firms themselves.
I sometimes think that the thoroughness of the work done within the Western European Union—I say this because I once led a delegation to it—amongst NATO parliamentarians, and in the Council of Europe should make us a little ashamed of the way in which the House of Commons approaches these matters. It should make us a little dissatisfied with our procedures. The House is not over-full of Members who are prepared to give careful and painstaking attention to defence matters. The hon. Gentleman has once again tonight shown that he is an exception. We are very grateful to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past One o'clock.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL

Division Lists Nos. 338–342

[See cc. 1509–12]

Division No. 338.]
AYES
[10.35 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Allaun, Frank
Flannery, Martin
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Archer, Peter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.


Armstrong, Ernest
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maclennan, Robert


Ashley, Jack
Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Forrester, John
McNamara, Kevin


Atkinson, Norman
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Madden, Max


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Magee, Bryan


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Simon


Bates, Alf
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bean, R. E.
George, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Gould, Bryan
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Bidwell, Sydney
Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bishop, E. S.
Graham, Ted
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Boardman, H.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Meacher, Michael


Booth, Albert
Grocott, Bruce
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mikardo, Ian


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hardy, Peter
Millan, Bruce


Bradley, Tom
Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Molloy, William


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Moonman, Eric


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hatton, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Buchan, Norman
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Campbell, Ian
Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Canavan, Dennis
Henderson, Douglas
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Cant, R. B.
Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stanley


Carmichael, Neil
Horam, John
Noble, Mike


Carter, Ray
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Oakes, Gordon


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Huckfield, Les
Ogden, Eric


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
O'Halloran, Michael


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hunter, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ovenden, John


Concannon, J. D.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Owen, Dr David


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Padley, Walter


Cook Robin F. (Edin C)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Palmer, Arthur


Corbett Robin
Janner, Greville
Park, George


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Parker, John


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Parry, Robert


Crowchaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom


Cryer, Bob
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Perry, Ernest


Cunningham G (Islington S)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Radice, Giles


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Judd, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Reid, George


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kelley, Richard
Richardson, Miss Jo


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Delargy, Hugh
Lambie, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lamborn, Harry
Roderick, Caerwyn


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Doig, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lee, John
Rooker, J. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roper, John


Dunn, James A.
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rose, Paul B.


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted


Edelman, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus
Ryman, John


Edge, Geoff
Litterick, Tom
Sandelson, Neville


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lomas, Kenneth
Sedgemore, Brian


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Loyden, Eddie
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


English, Michael
Luard, Evan
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Ennals, David
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon Jon (Deptford)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacCormick, Iain
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McElhone, Frank
Sillars, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)









Silverman, Julius
Tierney, Sydney
White, James (Pollok)


Skinner, Dennis
Tinn, James
Whitehead, Phillip


Small, William
Tomlinson, John
Whitlock, William


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Torney, Tom
Wigley, Dafydd


Snape, Peter
Tuck, Raphael
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Spearing, Nigel
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Spriggs, Leslie
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Stallard, A. W.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Stoddart, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stott, Roger
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wilson. Gordon (Dundee E)


Strang, Gavin
Ward, Michael
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Watkins, David
Woof, Robert


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Watkinson, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Swain, Thomas
Watt, Hamish
Young, David (Bolton E)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Weetch, Ken



Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Weitzman, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Thompson, George
Welsh, Andrew
Mr. J. D. Dormand.


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
White, Frank R. (Bury)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Eyre, Reginald
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Aitken, Jonathan
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kershaw, Anthony


Alison, Michael
Farr, John
Kilfedder, James


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fell, Anthony
Kimball, Marcus


Arnold, Tom
Finsberg, Geoffrey
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorns)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Awdry Daniel
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Baker, Kenneth
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Knox, David


Banks, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lamont, Norman


Beith, A. J.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lane, David


Bell, Ronald
Fox, Marcus
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Freud, Clement
Lawrence, Ivan


Benyon, W.
Fry, Peter
Lawson, Nigel


Berry, Hon Anthony
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lester Jim (Beeston)


Biffen, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Lloyd, Ian


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Loveridge, John


Body, Richard
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Luce, Richard


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McCrindle, Robert


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Goodhart, Philip
Macfarlane, Neil


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Goodhew, Victor
MacGregor, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodlad, Alastair
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Brittan, Leon
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Brotherton, Michael
Grant Anthony (Harrow C)
Madel, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gray, Hamish
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grieve, Percy
Marten, Neil


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mates, Michael


Buck, Antony
Grist, Ian
Mather, Carol


Budgen, Nick
Grylls, Michael
Maude, Angus


Bulmer, Esmond
Hall, Sir John
Mawby, Ray


Burden, F. A.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Carlisle, Mark
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mayhew, Patrick


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Hampson, Dr Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hannam, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Channon, Paul
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Miscampbell, Norman


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Havers, Sir Michael
Moate, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus


Clegg, Walter
Hayhoe, Barney
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Cockcroft, John
Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint


Cope, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Cordle, John H.
Hordern, Peter
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Costain, A. P.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Critchley, Julian
Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Crouch, David
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mudd, David


Crowder, F. P.
Hunt, John
Neave, Airey


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hurd, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neubert, Michael


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Newton, Tony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Nott, John


Drayson, Burnaby
James, David
Onslow, Cranley


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'dt'd)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Durant, Tony
Jessel, Toby
Page, John (Harrow West)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pardoe, John


Elliott, Sir William
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Parkinson, Cecil


Emery, Peter
Jopling, Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey







Penhaligon, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Percival, Ian
Shepherd, Colin
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Shersby, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D.


Pink, R. Bonner
Silvester, Fred
Trotter, Neville


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Sims, Roger
Tugendhat, Christopher


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Sinclair, Sir George
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Raison, Timothy
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rathbone, Tim
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Viggers, Peter


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Speed, Keith
Wakeham, John


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Renton Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Sproat, Iain
Wall, Patrick


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stainton, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Ridsdale, Julian
Stanbrook, Ivor
Warren, Kenneth


Rifkind Malcolm
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Weatherill, Bernard


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Wells, John


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Stokes, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Winterton, Nicholas


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Tapsell, Peter
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Royle, Sir Anthony
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Sainsbury, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)



St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tebbit, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Scott, Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Russell Fairgrieve and


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Mr. Michael Roberts.

Division No. 340.]
AYES
[10.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Carmichael, Neil
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Allaun, Frank
Carter, Ray
Dempsey, James


Anderson, Donald
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Doig, Peter


Archer, Peter
Cartwright, John
Dormand, J. D.


Armstrong, Ernest
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Ashley, Jack
Clemitson, Ivor
Duffy, A. E. P.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Dunn, James A.


Atkinson, Norman
Cohen, Stanley
Dunnett, Jack


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Coleman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Bates, Alf
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Edelman, Maurice


Bean, R. E.
Concannon, J. D.
Edge, Geoff


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Conian, Bernard
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
English, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbett Robin
Ennals, David


Bishop, E. S.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Boardman, H.
Crawshaw, Richard
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Booth, Albert
Cronin, John
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cryer, Bob
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Bradley, Tom
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Flannery, Martin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davidson, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Ford, Ben


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Forrester, John


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Campbell, Ian
Deakins, Eric
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Canavan, Dennis
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Freeson, Reginald


Cant, R. B.
Delargy, Hugh
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)







George, Bruce
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Ginsburg, David
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rowlands, Ted


Gould, Bryan
Mackenzie, Gregor
Ryman, John


Gourlay, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.
Sandelson, Neville


Graham, Ted
Maclennan, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Grant, George (Morpeth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Grant, John (Islington C)
McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Grocott, Bruce
Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Magee, Bryan
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Hardy. Peter
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Simon
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marks, Kenneth
Sillars, James


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marquand, David
Silverman, Julius


Hatton, Frank
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Skinner, Dennis


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Small, William


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Heffer, Eric S.
Maynard, Miss Joan
Snape, Peter


Hooley, Frank
Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Horam, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Hoyle. Doug (Nelson)
Mikardo, Ian
Stallard, A. W.


Huckfield, Les
Millan, Bruce
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Molloy, William
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hunter, Adam
Moonman, Eric
Swain, Thomas


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thorne, Stan (Frestor. South)


Janner, Greville
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tierney, Sydney


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Newens, Stanley
Tinn, James


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Noble, Mike
Tomlinson, John


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oakes, Gordon
Torney, Tom


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Ogden, Eric
Tuck, Raphael


John, Brynmor
O'Halloran, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Johnson, James (Hull West)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Orbach, Maurice
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ovenden, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Dr David
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Judd, Frank
Padley, Walter
Ward, Michael


Kaufman, Gerald
Palmer, Arthur
Watkins, David


Kelley, Richard
Park, George
Watkinson, John


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Parker, John
Weetch, Ken


Kinnock, Neil
Parry, Robert
Weitzman, David


Lambie, David
Pavitt, Laurie
Wellbeloved, James


Lamborn, Harry
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lamond, James
Pendry, Tom
White, James (Pollok)


Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, Ernest
Whitehead, Phillip


Lee, John
Phipps, Dr Colin
Whitlock, William


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Richardson. Miss Jo
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Lipton, Marcus
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Litterick, Tom
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lomas, Kenneth
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Loyden, Eddie
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woof, Robert


Luard, Evan
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)



Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Rooker, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


McCartney, Hugh
Roper, John
Mr. John Ellis and


McElhone, Frank
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. David Stoddart.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Blaker, Peter
Carr, Rt Hon Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Body, Richard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Alison, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Channon, Paul


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bottomley, Peter
Churchill, W. S.


Arnold, Tom
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthome)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Awdry, Daniel
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Kenneth
Brittan, Leon
Clegg, Walter


Banks, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Cockcroft, John


Beith, A. J.
Brotherton, Michael
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Bell, Ronald
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cope, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Cordle, John H.


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Buck, Antony
Costain, A. P.


Benyon, W.
Budgen, Nick
Critchley, Julian


Berry, Hon Anthony
Bulmer, Esmond
Crouch, David


Biffen, John
Burden, F. A.
Crowder, F. P.


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Mark
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)







Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Drayson, Burnaby
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kilfedder, James
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Durant, Tony
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rifkind Malcolm


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Elliott, Sir William
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Emery, Peter
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sainsbury, Tim


Farr, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fell, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan
Scott, Nicholas


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lawson, Nigel
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lester Jim (Beeston)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Colin


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Ian
Shersby, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Loveridge, John
Silvester, Fred


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Luce, Richard
Sims, Roger


Fox, Marcus
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Freud, Clement
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fry, Peter
MacGregor, John
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Speed, Keith


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sproat, Iain


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Madel, David
Stainton, Keith


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marten, Neil
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawby, Ray
Stokes, John


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mayhew, Patrick
Tapsell, Peter


Grant Anthony (Harrow C)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Gray, Hamish
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter
Tebbit, Norman


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Miscampbell, Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hall, Sir John
Montgomery, Fergus
Thompson, George


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morgan, Geraint
Trotter, Neville


Hannam, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Tugendhat, Christopher


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Viggers, Peter


Havers, Sir Michael
Mudd, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey
Wakeham, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Nelson, Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Henderson, Douglas
Neubert, Michael
Wall, Patrick


Heseltine, Michael
Newton, Tony
Walters, Dennis


Hicks, Robert
Nott, John
Warren, Kenneth


Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley
Watt, Hamish


Hooson, Emlyn
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Weatherill, Bernard


Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow West)
Wells, John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Welsh, Andrew


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pardoe, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Parkinson, Cecil
Wiggin, Jerry


Hunt, John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wigley, Dafydd


Hurd, Douglas
Penhaligon, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pink, R. Bonner
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Pym. Rt Hon Francis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES-


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Russell Fairgrieve and


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Division No. 341.]
AYES
[11.13 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bates, Alf
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur


Allaun, Frank
Bean, R. E.
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)


Anderson, Donald
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Bradley, Tom


Archer, Peter
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Armstrong, Ernest
Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Ashley. Jack
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)


Atkinson. Norman
Boardman, H.
Buchan, Norman


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Booth, Albert
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)







Campbell, Ian
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ovenden, John


Canavan, Dennis
Huckfield, Les
Owen, Dr David


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Palmer, Arthur


Carter, Ray
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, George


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John


Cartwright, John
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Parry, Robert


Caslle, Rt Hon Barbara
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Clemitson. Ivor
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Pendry, Tom


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Perry, Ernest


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Phipps, Dr Colin


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Price, William (Rugby)


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Radice, Giles


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
John, Brynmor
Reid, George


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts. Gwilym (Cannock)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cronin, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cryor, Bob
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kelley, Richard
Rooker, J. W.


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roper, John


Davidson, Arthur
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lamborn, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Ryman, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Leadbitter, Ted
Sandelson, Neville


Deakins, Eric
Lee, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Delargy, Hugh
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Doig, Peter
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dormand. J. D.
Litterick, Tom
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Duffy, A. E, P.
Loyden, Eddie
Sillars, James


Dunn, James A.
Luard, Evan
Silverman, Julius


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Small, William


Edelman, Maurice
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Edge, Geoff
McCartney, Hugh
Snape, Peter


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
MacCormick, Iain
Spearing, Nigel


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McElhone, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


English, Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stallard, A. W.


Ennals. David
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stoddart, David


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stott, Roger


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Fernyhough. Rt Hon E.
McNamara, Kevin
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Madden, Max
Swain, Thomas


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Magee, Bryan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Flannery, Martin
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thompson, George


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Ford, Ben
Marquand, David
Tierney, Sydney


Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tomlinson, John


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w d)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Torney, Tom


Freeson, Reginald
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tuck. Raphael


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Meacher, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


George, Bruce
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Gould, Bryan
Millan, Bruce
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Graham, Ted
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William
Ward, Michael


Grant, John (Islington C)
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, David


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkinson, John


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watt, Hamish


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Weetch, Ken


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Weitzman, David


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wellbeloved, James


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Newens, Stanley
Welsh, Andrew


Hatton, Frank
Noble, Mike
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Oakes, Gordon
White, James (Pollok)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ogden, Eric
Whitehead, Phillip


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitlock, William


Henderson, Douglas
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Wigley, Dafydd


Hooley, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Horam, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)







Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Woot, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. James Hamilton and


Williams. W. T. (Warrington)
Young. David (Bolton E)
Mr. Laurie Pavtti


Wise, Mrs. Audrey






NOES


Adley, Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Aitken, Jonathan
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mayhew, Patrick


Alison, Michael
Glyn, Dr Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Arnold, Tom
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman


Awdry, Daniel
Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Baker, Kenneth
Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Banks. Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Montgomery, Fergus


Beith, A. J.
Grant Anthony (Harrow C)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Bell, Ronald
Gray, Hamish
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Biffen, John
Grist, Ian
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Biggs-Davison, John
Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Blaker, Peter
Hall, Sir John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mudd, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Bottomley, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Newton, Tony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Nott, John


Brittan, Leon
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Havers, Sir Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Brotherton, Michael
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow West)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heseltine, Michael
Pardoe, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil


Buck, Antony
Higgins, Terence L.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Budgen, Nick
Hooson, Emlyn
Penhaligon, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Burden, F. A.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Carlisle, Mark
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Howells. Geraint (Cardigan)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hunt, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Channon, Paul
Hurd, Douglas
Raison, Timothy


Churchill, W. S.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rathbone, Tim


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir peter


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Renton Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cockcroft, John
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cope, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rifkind Malcolm


Cordle, John H.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crowder, F. P.
Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kimball, Marcus
Royle, Sir Anthony


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sainsbury, Tim


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kitson, Sir Timothy
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott, Nicholas


Drayson, Burnaby
Knox, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lamont, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Durant, Tony
Lane, David
Shepherd, Colin


Eden. Rt Hon Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shersby, Michael


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Silvester, Fred


Elliott, Sir William
Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Emery, Peter
Lawson, Nigel
Sinclair, Sir George


Eyre, Reginald
Lester Jim (Beeston)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lloyd, Ian
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Farr, John
Loveridge, John
Speed, Keith


Fell, Anthony
Luce, Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert
Sproat, Iain


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
MacGregor, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fletcher-Cooke, Charies
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fox, Marcus
Madel, David
Stokes, John


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Freud, Clement
Marten, Neil
Tapsell, Peter


Fry, Peter
Mates, Michael
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maude, Angus
Tebbit, Norman


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mawby, Ray
Temple-Morris, Peter







Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Wakeham, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Townsend, Cyril D.
Wall, Patrick
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Trotter, Neville
Walters, Dennis



Tugendhat, at, Christopher
Warren, Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. W. Benyon and


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wells, John
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Viggers, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Division No. 342.]
AYES
[11.29 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ennals, David
Lomas, Kenneth


Allaun, Frank
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Eddie


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Luard, Evan


Archer, Peter
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Ashley, Jack
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCartney, Hugh


Atkinson, Norman
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McElhone, Frank


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Flannery, Martin
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bates, Alf
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Bean, R. E.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mackintosh, John P.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Bishop, E. S.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McNamara, Kevin


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Madden, Max


Boardman, H.
Freeson, Reginald
Magee, Bryan


Booth, Albert
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
George, Bruce
Mahon, Simon


Boydern, James (Bish Auck)
Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bradley Tom
Gould, Bryan
Marks, Kenneth


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gourlay, Harry
Marquand, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Graham, Ted
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Buchan, Norman
Grocott, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meacher, Michael


Campbell, Ian
Hardy, Peter
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Canavan, Dennis
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian


Cant, R. B.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Millan, Bruce


Carmichael, Neil
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)


Carter, Ray
Hatton, Frank
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Molloy, William


Cartwright, John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Moonman, Eric


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Clemitson, Ivor
Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cohen, Stanley
Huckfield, Les
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)
Newens, Stanley


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noble, Mike


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon


Cook. Robin F. (Edin C)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ogden, Eric


Corbett, Robin
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Orbach, Maurice


Crawshaw, Richard
Janner, Greville
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ovenden, John


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Owen, Dr David


Cryer, Bob
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Padley, Walter


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Palmer, Arthur


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
John, Brynmor
Park, George


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parker, John


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Parry, Robert


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies. Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pendry, Tom


Deakins, Eric
Judd, Frank
Perry, Ernest


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kaufman. Gerald
Phipps, Or Colin


Delargy, Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kilroy-Silk. Robert
Price, William (Rugby)


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Radice, Giles


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Dormand, J. D.
Lamborn, Harry
Richardson, Miss Jo


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamond, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dunn, James A.
Lee, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Edelman. Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rooker, J. W.


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lipton, Marcus
Roper, John


English, Michael
Litterick, Tom
Rose, Paul B.







Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Strang, Gavin
Weetch, Ken


Rowlands, Ted
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Weitzman, David


Sandelson, Neville
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wellbeloved, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Swain, Thomas
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
White, James (Pollok)


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitehead, Phillip


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thomas Ron (Bristol NW)
Whitlock, William


Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wigley, Dafydd


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Tierney, Sydney
Willey. Rt Hon Frederick


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Tinn, James
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Tomlinson, John
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Sillars, James
Torney, Tom
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Silverman, Julius
Tuck Raphael
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Urwin, I W.
Woof, Robert


Small, William
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Snape, Peter
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)



Spearing, Nigel
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spriggs, Leslie
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Stallard, A. W.
Ward, Michael
Mr. John Ellis.


Stoddart, David
Watkins, David



Stott, Roger
Watkinson, John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Eyre, Reginald
Jessel, Toby


Aitken, Jonathan
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Alison, Michael
Fairgrieve, Russell
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Farr, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Arnold, Tom
Fell, Anthony
Jopling, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Awdry, Daniel
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kershaw, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Kilfedder, James


Banks, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kimball, Marcus


Beith, A. J.
Fookes, Miss Janet
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bell, Ronald
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fox, Marcus
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Knox, David


Biffen, John
Freud, Clement
Lamont, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Fry, Peter
Lane, David


Blaker, Peter
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Body, Richard
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Lawrence, Ivan


Bottomley, Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Lawson, Nigel


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Lester Jim (Beeston)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Lloyd, Ian


Brittan, Leon
Goodhart, Philip
Loveridge, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Goodhew, Victor
Luce, Richard


Brotherton, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair
MacCormick, Iain


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gorst, John
McCrindle, Robert


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Macfarlane, Neil


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Grant Anthony (Harrow C)
MacGregor, John


Buck, Antony
Gray, Hamish
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Budgen, Nick
Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Bulmer, Esmond
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Burden, F. A.
Grist, Ian
Madel, David


Carlisle, Mark
Grylls, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Hall, Sir John
Marten, Neil


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mates, Michael


Channon, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mather, Carol


Churchill, W. S.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Maude, Angus


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hannam, John
Mawby, Ray


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mayhew, Patrick


Clegg, Walter
Hastings, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cockcrort, John
Havers, Sir Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Caoke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Peter


Cope, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Miscampbell, Norman


Cordle, John H
Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Costain, A. P.
Hicks, Robert
Moate, Roger


Critchley, Julian
Higgins, Terence L.
Montgomery, Fergus


Crouch, David
Hooson, Emlyn
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Crowder, F. P.
Hordern, Peter
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Davies. Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morgan, Geraint


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunt, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Drayson, Burnaby
Hurd, Douglas
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mudd, David


Durant, Tony
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Neave, Airey


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Nelson, Anthony


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
James, David
Neubert, Michael


Elliott, Sir William
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Newton, Tony


Emery, Peter

Nott, John







Onslow, Cranley
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Scott, Nicholas
Thompson, George


Page, John (Harrow West)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Pardoe, John
Shepherd, Colin
Trotter, Neville


Parkinson, Cecil
Shersby, Michael
Tugendhat, Christopher


Pattle, Geoffrey
Silvester, Fred
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Penhaligon, David
Sims, Roger
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Percival, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George
Viggers, Peter


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Pink, R. Bonner
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wakeham, John


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Speed, Keith
Wall, Patrick


Raison, Timothy
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Walters, Dennis


Rathbone, Tim
Sproat, Iain
Warren, Kenneth


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Stainton, Keith
Watt, Hamish


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Weatherill, Bernard


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wells, John


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Welsh, Andrew


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Ridsdale, Julian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wiggin, Jerry


Rifkind Malcolm
Stokes, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tapsell, Peter
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)



Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. W. Benyon and


Royle, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Sainsbury, Tim
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret